Revising the Roots of Orthodoxy
We may begin a response by noting that a major element in the revisionist argument, that orthodoxy was not always and everywhere the majority opinion of early Christians, is largely irrelevant. That is, the revisionists want to assert not only that early Christianity was characterized by theological diversity, but especially that the orthodox claim to apostolicity is unwarranted, and it is generally assumed or implied that the two assertions are logically related. But whether or not Acts or Eusebius can be shown to have “sugarcoated” their accounts and made orthodoxy appear to have been stronger than it was in no way argues against the legitimacy of the claim of orthodoxy to be apostolic. Suppose, for example, the evidence indicates, as Bauer claims, that the churches in Edessa, Syria, or Alexandria, Egypt, were heterodox from their inception, and that the heterodox elements in these churches continued in the majority for a century or more. This says no more about the illegitimacy of orthodox claims to apostolicity than would an argument that the “church” in Utah was originally and continues in the main to be Mormon. So what? It neither makes Mormonism a more legitimate expression of apostolic Christianity nor the Protestant church a less legitimate expression. It just shows that Mormonism successfully entrenched itself geographically.
But more critically, the evidence upon which the revisionists make these assertions can be called into question. Thus, many of Bauer’s claims have been incisively challenged (see the sidebar), especially in the way in which he handles his evidence. For example, Bauer reads the letters of Ignatius, an early bishop of Antioch, who was martyred around 110, as evidencing a weak and struggling orthodoxy. Bauer notes that, though Ignatius writes to the church in Philadelphia, he does not write to the church in Thessalonika, suggesting that the orthodox Ignatius knew his views would have no reception there, that is, that Thessalonika was thoroughly heterodox.
On the other hand, when Ignatius writes to Philadelphia, he much too strongly commends the bishop, suggesting that the majority of the church in Philadelphia is generally unwilling to submit to the bishop, that is, that they are heterodox, and that the bishop is in fact only a leader of the minority who happened to maneuver into a powerful position. In other words, silence for Bauer indicates at best very weak orthodoxy and volume indicates minority but possibly assertive orthodoxy. Seemingly, no evidence counts against his thesis! In never once seriously considering alternative, more benign explanations for these phenomena, Bauer merely begs the question, and his conclusions have thus rightfully been disputed.
The revisionist treatment of Acts and Paul is similarly ham-fisted. So, for example, Ehrman points to Gal 2:11-14 to demonstrate that Paul was “at loggerheads with the apostles in Jerusalem” while “Acts portrays the entire Christian [sic] in harmony from the beginning to the end of Paul’s mission,” referring the reader to Acts 15:1-24. But if Acts 15:1-24 shows anything, it shows that Luke is not reticent to record the factious nature of early Christianity (quite in line with Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch). On the other hand, though Paul is not over-awed by the apostles in Jerusalem (Gal 1:16-17; 2:6), he certainly does not portray himself as at complete loggerheads with them either (Gal 1:18-2:10). As with Bauer’s evidence, a more nuanced reading of the differences between Acts and Paul than that given by the revisionists is required. In fact, many NT scholars have concluded, contra the revisionists, that Acts and Paul’s letters are compatible on their own terms and that Acts’ account of early Christianity is generally reliable. Furthermore, and more importantly, both Acts and Galatians (and other Pauline epistles) demonstrate that Paul and his churches—indeed all factions in the early church—had a stake in genuine apostolic endorsement, that is, that they believed the apostles taught a system of behavior and belief grounded in the teaching of the historical Jesus. And this brings us to Ehrman’s first question: did Jesus and the apostles teach orthodoxy?
Did Jesus and the Apostles Teach “Orthodoxy”?
Unfortunately, though this is really where the rubber meets the road, revisionists hardly deal with this question. In Lost Christianities, Ehrman is content to assert that when the Gospels are subjected to critical inquiry it becomes clear that Jesus did not teach orthodoxy or anything that might legitimately have developed into orthodoxy. In fact, he even makes the astonishing claim that orthodoxy is not to be found anywhere in the NT.
But this clearly overstates the case. First, though Ehrman is correct to assert that much critical scholarship calls into question the accuracy of the Gospels’ portrayals of Jesus and his teachings, he is wrong to assume the case is closed. A number of NT scholars, employing many of the same critical criteria to determine the authenticity of the sayings and deeds of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels that Ehrman thinks undermine the reliability of those accounts, have argued for substantial continuity between the historical Jesus and his portrayal in the canonical Gospels.9 This assessment includes the authenticity of such “proto-orthodox” sayings as Mark 10:45, where Jesus interprets his death as a sin offering (in fulfillment of Isa 52:13-53:12), and Mark 14:62 where Jesus claims, with divine overtones, to be the heavenly Son of Man of Dan 7:13-14. Second, orthodoxy is so obviously taught in the NT that most revisionists consider the NT an orthodox document. All primary orthodox doctrines are taught at least in nuce in its pages, including the humanity and divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, the second coming in judgment, as well as deference to the authority of the OT Scriptures and its general theology. More importantly, the NT writings self-consciously relate their teachings to the apostolic witness far more credibly than do any heterodox documents known to us.
The Validity of Orthodox claims to Apostolicity
Revisionist scholars are fond of touting the numerous extra-canonical Gospels, Acts, letters, and apocalypses (e.g. the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Acts of John, the Letter of Peter to James, and the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter) as evidence of a diverse theological scene in early Christianity, with each sect appealing to apostolic roots for its validity.10 What these scholars do not often reveal is that the most ancient documents to do so are our NT books and the Apostolic Fathers, all orthodox texts.
The earliest Christian documents we possess are the letters of Paul, the first of which were written within thirty years of the death and resurrection of Jesus.11 Already in these we have evidence of proto-orthodox doctrines with connections or direct appeal to the authority of the twelve apostles. So, for instance, in 1 Cor 15:1-8, Paul summarizes the gospel “he had received” (parelabon, indicating instruction in an authoritative tradition), namely, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter] and then to the twelve.…” Or again, in 1 Cor 16:22, Paul closes his letter with the Aramaic prayer, “maranatha,” which means, “Our Lord, come!” Here is a prayer to Jesus from the earliest stage of the church (as indicated by its Aramaic form) that had become such a traditional part of early Christology it could be quoted with understanding to a Greek church (cf. Rev 22:20). Other instances of the use of pre-Pauline orthodox material in Paul’s letters include Gal 4:6/Rom 8:15 and perhaps Php 2:5-11. And recall that Paul in Galatians is concerned to indicate his continuity with the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-2). Thus in its earliest stratum, that is, in the first twenty or thirty years of the church, the NT evidences a core apostolic faith that is orthodox.