Heresy Archives - Canon Fodder

Was Gnosticism Tolerant and Inclusive? Debunking Some Myths about “Alternative” Christianities

April 23, 2018

In the world of biblical studies, at least among some critical scholars, Gnosticism has been the darling for sometime now. Especially since the discovery of the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” at Nag Hammadi in 1945, scholars have sung the praises of this alternative version of Christianity.

Gnosticism was a heretical version of Christianity that burst on the scene primarily in the second century and gave the orthodox Christians a run for their money. And it seems that some scholars look back and wish that the Gnostics had prevailed.

After all, it is argued, traditional Christianity was narrow, dogmatic, intolerant, elitist, and mean-spirited, whereas Gnosticism was open-minded, all-welcoming, tolerant and loving. Given this choice, which would you choose?

While this narrative about free-spirited Gnosticism being sorely oppressed by those mean and uptight orthodox Christians might sound rhetorically compelling, it simply isn’t borne out by the facts. So, here are five claims often made about Gnosticism that prove to be more myth than reality: [Read more…]

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How and When was the New Testament Canon Put Together?

November 20, 2017

For the last few weeks, I have been posting a series of videos where Andreas Köstenberger and I discuss our response to Walter Bauer’s thesis on heresy and orthodoxy in early Christianity.

These discussions are based on our book, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (Crossway, 2010).

The first week was an overview of Bauer and why we wrote the book (see here), and the second week was on the role of diversity in the NT books themselves (see here).

In this video below, we discuss an area very central to the Bauer thesis, namely the development of the NT canon. Bauer argues that we have no reason to think the books in our NT are the “right” books because they are simply the books chosen by the theological winners. And the winners get to determine the scope of the canon.

After all, argues Bauer, what if another early Christian group had prevailed? What if the Gnostics had won? Then we might have the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip in our Bibles instead of, say, Matthew and John.

This sort of narrative about the origins of the canon has been repeated countless times over the years, in both popular and academic literature. But it runs into a significant problem: [Read more…]

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: What Do the NT Books Tell Us About Early Christian Diversity?

November 12, 2017

Last week I began a new blog series (see first post here) addressing the theme of unity and diversity in early Christianity, particularly as it pertains to the well-known work of Walter Bauer.

Essentially, Bauer argued there was no such thing “heresy” or “orthodoxy” during this time period. These ideas, he argues, are simply artificial constructs of the later theological victors.

This series is exploring Bauer’s thesis through a number of video conversations between myself and Andreas Köstenberger. These videos reflect on our book that critiques Bauer: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (Crossway, 2010). [Read more…]

Where Are All the Heretical Bishops in the Second Century?

February 15, 2016

A number of my recent posts (e.g., see here) have been dealing with Walter Bauer’s 1934 book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity which insists that Christianity was wildly diverse in the earliest centuries and that the heretics outnumbered the orthodox. It was not until the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is argued, that the orthodox began to turn the tide.

But let’s test this theory by asking a simple question: who were the bishops in second-century Christianity? If heresy was as widespread as orthodoxy, we should expect to find a number of bishops that are openly Marcionite, Ebionite, Gnostic, and beyond.

The problem for Bauer’s thesis is that this is precisely what we don’t find.

When we examine bishops from the second century we find a litany that fit nicely within the orthodox camp: Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Anecitus of Rome, Polycrates of Ephesus, Victor of Rome, Demetrius of Alexandria, Melito of Sardis, Theophilus of Caesarea, and Dionysius of Corinth.

While these leaders certainly did not agree on everything, it is evident from their writings, or from historical reports about them, that there are no reasons to identify them with heterodox groups like the Marcionites, Gnostics, or Ebionites.

What is particularly noteworthy about the above list is that they represent a wide geographical range: Lyons (Gaul), Smyrna, Antioch, Hierapolis, Rome, Sardis, Ephesus, and Corinth. In other words, these orthodox leaders were not cordoned off into some small outpost of early Christianity.

It might be objected that orthodox bishops were forced into these geographical locales by higher ecclesiastical powers bent on imposing their agenda on others. The problem with this suggestion is that there were no “higher ecclesiastical powers” during this time period. There was not an ecclesiastical structure that allowed churches in one city to dictate the leadership of churches in another city.

It should also not be forgotten that, in this earliest phase, it was common for leaders to be elected by their local congregations (e.g., Did. 15.1; 1 Clem. 44.3). Thus, we have every reason to think that these many bishops, and the beliefs that they held, are a reasonably accurate representation of the Christian constituencies they served.

When we turn to heterodox groups in the second century, there are certainly many examples of their leaders (e.g., Menander, Saturninus, Cerdo, Basilides, Cerinthus). But, what is lacking is evidence that they held the office of bishop in the various locales in which they were active.

There is no explicit mention, at least in the second century, of any identifiable Gnostic, Marcionite, or Ebionite holding the office of bishop. Or, at least, I haven’t found one (please let me know if I have missed an example).

We do have indications that Valentinus may have been considered for the office of bishop of Rome, but the legitimacy of this report is seriously questioned. Irenaeus rebukes the presbyter (not bishop) Florinus for embracing the “Valentinian error” (Hist. eccl. 5.20.1), but it is evident that this was a new development—Florinus actually started out as an orthodox disciple of Polycarp.

Or, perhaps we might think of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome who barely crosses over into the second century (c.199-217), whom Hippolytus accused of modalism (Ref. 9.2). But, the modalism issue was much more narrow. Zephyrinus was certainly no Ebionite, Gnostic, or Marcionite. Regardless, even if we grant the instance of Zephyrinus, it is the exception that proves the rule.

When the dust settles on these sorts of discussions, the bare and (for Bauer) problematic reality remains: heretics didn’t seem very successful in winning over most congregations in the second century. Put differently, there is little evidence that they were in the majority.

Once again, despite all the buzz about diversity in early Christianity, we have no reason to doubt that the mainstream church during this time period was still one that could be generally identified as “orthodox.”

How Diverse Was Early Christianity? Clearing Up a Few Misconceptions

January 18, 2016

For some critical scholars, the most important fact about early Christianity was its radical theological diversity. Christians couldn’t agree on much of anything, we are told. All we have in the early centuries were a variety of Christian factions all claiming to be original and all claiming to be apostolic.

Sure, one particular group–the group we now know as “orthodox” Christianity–won those theological wars. But why (the argument goes) should we think this group is any more valid than the groups that lost? What if another group (say the Gnostic Christians) had won? If they had, then what we call “Christianity” would look radically different.

Thus, according to these critics, in the second and third centuries there really was no such thing as “Christianity.” Rather there were “Christiantities” (plural), all of which were locked in a battle for theological supremacy.

This entire line of thinking, of course, goes back to Walter Bauer’s 1934 book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. But, its most ardent supporter today is Bart Ehrman. Ehrman describes precisely this view of early Christianity:

The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all by the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others that insisted there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365 (Lost Christianities, 2).

Ehrman then proceeds to provide a laundry list of many of the conflicting beliefs held by early Christians–a list that no doubt would (and was certainly designed to) overwhelm and shock the average reader.

So, what can be said in response to such claims? Was early Christianity really as diverse as Ehrman claims? Was there no credible standard by which Christians in the second century could tell the difference between true and false beliefs?

There is much to be said in answer to these questions. I have already addressed some of them in a prior blog post (here) and, of course, in my book The Heresy of Orthodoxy.

But, in this short post, I simply want to observe (and respond to) something noteworthy about Ehrman’s methodology. Notice that as he described groups that believed in 2 or 30 or 365 gods, that he refers to these groups as “Christians.”

And why does he do this? Because, as he said, these people “understood themselves to be followers of Jesus.”

But, the use of this terminology by Ehrman is a bit misleading. Sure, these people claimed the name of Jesus. That is not in doubt. But, it strains credibility to think that this is a title that accurately and fairly describes their theology.

The fact of the matter is that Christians did not believe in 2 or 30 or 365 gods. Christians were committed not only to the Old Testament but to a monotheistic system. The historical evidence for this is overwhelming.

The groups that believed in, say, 365 gods were in fact, Gnostics. In particular, Ehrman is referring to Basilides here (and they weren’t really “gods” in the way we think of it, but more like creator-angels).

And the theology of the Gnostics was so out of bounds that it could not be recognizably given the label “Christianity” with any historical or theological credibility.

But, it is not difficult to see why scholars insist on using labels like “Christianity” to describe such groups. The answer is because it creates the impression that there was greater diversity than there really was.

The more the label “Christianity” can be tossed around indiscriminately, then the more it appears that Christians could believe just about anything (and did). In strips the word of all its meaning.

What you have in Ehrman’s statement above, then, is a bit of semantic slight of hand. Yes, it is defensible under the heading that “these people thought they were Christians and who am I to say otherwise?” But, at the same time, it remains substantially misleading and, in the end, unhelpful.

To take a modern example, consider the UFO religious group “Heaven’s Gate” led by Marshall Applewhite. This group believed that they would, upon death, be transported to an alien ship following the Hale-Bopp comet—a belief that led 39 of them to commit mass suicide in 1997. They also claimed to follow Jesus and to be fulfilling the prophecies of Revelation.

What if a newspaper reporter tracking these events went on the evening news and declared, “Christians believe in UFO’s and also believe that they should commit suicide in order to join an alien spacecraft trailing the Hale-Bopp comet.”

When challenged about such a statement, the reporter could say, “Well, this group claims to be Christian!” But, I think we all know that defense is inadequate. No one with journalist integrity would speak in such a misleading way when they know that, historically speaking, this does not represent the Christian faith.

In the end, not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christianity ought to be considered a follower of Christianity. If that basic principle were applied to our study of the second century in a balanced and fair way, I think much (though not all) of the rhetoric about radical diversity would have to be modified.