It's often suggested that we have no reason to think that what we today call orthodox or traditional Christianity was superior to its earliest rivals who also claimed to be Christian. Why prefer traditional Christianity to Gnosticism? Or Marcionism? Or other early alternatives? How could we tell that one group has a better claim to truth than the others?
There are a lot of ways to compare these groups. We can look at their size, the character of their leaders, what evidence the groups offer for their claims, the internal consistency of their claims, etc. What I want to do in this post is discuss several examples.
There's a lot of evidence that the people we today call orthodox were the majority of professing Christians in the earliest centuries. Those people are more prominent in the historical record, including in descriptions of Christianity in non-Christian sources, and all agree that they were the majority in later centuries. Their majority status in the earlier centuries would make more sense of their later prominence.
C.E. Hill has argued that the manuscript evidence suggests that the canonical gospels were much more popular, and represent a much larger number of ancient professing Christians, than heretical and apocryphal gospels (Who Chose The Gospels? [New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], 7-33). See, also, here.
Even Celsus, who often spoke hyperbolically of Christian diversity and sectarianism, recognized that there was a "great church" and "those of the multitude" (in Origen, Against Celsus, 5:59, 5:61), probably the orthodox mainstream that sources like Irenaeus and Tertullian refer to. Celsus may have a similar concept in mind concerning Judaism when he refers to "the multitude of the Jews" (ibid., 5:61).
When addressing heretics in the second century, Irenaeus often refers to them as highly fragmented and suggests that they were relatively small groups. As Eric Osborn noted, "He [Irenaeus] contrasts the universal spread of the rule [core doctrines of orthodoxy] with the local sectarian Gnostic phenomena." (Irenaeus Of Lyons [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 23)
Irenaeus tells us that some heretics rejected some New Testament documents (Against Heresies, 3:11:7), but that most "do certainly recognise the Scriptures; but they pervert the interpretations" (Against Heresies, 3:12:12). In his homilies on Luke's gospel, Origen notes, "There are countless heresies that accept the Gospel According to Luke." (Joseph Lienhard, trans., Origen: Homilies On Luke, Fragments On Luke [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 1996], 67) Harry Gamble writes:
"This means that what was at stake between gnostic and non-gnostic Christians was not principally which books were authoritative, but rather how the scriptures were to be rightly interpreted. In point of fact, gnostic Christians employed virtually all the books that were used in the church at large. The difference lay not in the documents, but in different hermeneutical programs." (in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 293)
Irenaeus appeals to evidence of a highly public nature to argue for his view of Christianity, whereas the Gnostics appeal to evidence of a highly private nature. That's a significant difference that suggests orthodox Christians had more objective evidence for their belief system. Bruce Metzger wrote:
"The Gnostics acknowledged this [that Gnosticism wasn't found in the New Testament documents], but asserted that such teachings had not been communicated by the Lord to the general public, but only to his most trusted disciples....The Gnostics also produced other texts in which the apostles report what the Lord had secretly communicated to them....Alongside such 'secret' traditions the Gnostics would, naturally, also know and even utilize the books received by the Church, while interpreting them in their own special manner." (The Canon Of The New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], 77-8)
Elsewhere, Metzger discusses how the New Testament documents are more accurate than the heretical and apocryphal literature in what they say about history, topography, and other subjects (ibid., 167, 173-4, 180, 287).
Notice that Gnostics thought they had to concede the authority of the New Testament documents, whereas traditional Christians saw no need to concede the authority of the Gnostic literature. And notice that Gnostics had to appeal to dubious interpretations of the New Testament in an attempt to reconcile the documents with their beliefs. They weren't interpreting the New Testament with the same sort of historical-grammatical method of interpretation that's normally applied when reading literature. How many of today's skeptics would argue that the Gnostics had an equal or more accurate interpretation of the New Testament? Few, I suspect.
When Marcionites acknowledge that they disagree with what most of the apostles taught (in Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:3), that admission has a lot of significance in evaluating their credibility. It's also significant that Marcion accepted orthodox Christianity and the canonical version of Luke's gospel before later rejecting them (ibid., 1:1, 4:4). Tertullian claims that no church with a lineage from the apostles agreed with Marcion's view of God (ibid., 1:21), which is a major problem for the credibility of Marcionism at so early a date.
Other early rivals to traditional Christianity could be assessed in a similar manner. See, for example, the discussion of how Valentinianism was inferior to orthodoxy in Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger, The Heresy Of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), 46. I've only provided several examples of orthodoxy's superiority, but these examples and others that could be cited have a wider application.
The myth of a 'Great Apostasy' after the death of the last apostle runs deep in Evangelical circles. It renders talk like this post irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe people need to take a look and realise 'Orthodoxy' was actually the legitimate expression of New Testament Christianity.
I think there's some equivocation here. You seem to be using "Orthodoxy" as a synonym for Eastern Orthodoxy (or possibly Roman Catholicism). I think Jason is using it as a generic term rather than a brand name.
DeleteShellee,
DeleteI'm an Evangelical. So are some of the scholars I cited. If you want us to think my post is irrelevant for Evangelicals, you need to offer more of an explanation than just referring to how belief in a "Great Apostasy" is something that "runs deep in Evangelical circles". A phrase like "runs deep" is too ambiguous, and so is some of your other language. Is the belief in question something held by all Evangelicals or just some? If some, then how many, and am I one of them? Is the view in question inherent to Evangelicalism or something that isn't inherent?
Since my post addresses matters like the contents of the New Testament documents and how they're interpreted, I'm addressing more than what happened "after the death of the last apostle". And I've addressed what happened after the death of the apostles elsewhere, like here. The orthodoxy I'm referring to isn't Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Have you read any of the relevant passages in sources like Irenaeus and Tertullian? They didn't define orthodoxy in Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox terms. Nor do the modern critics of Christianity who dispute the superiority of orthodoxy. Do you think individuals like Bart Ehrman have Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy in mind when they raise this issue? They don't. They're defining orthodoxy in a broader way, and rightly so.
Whether that historical definition of orthodoxy is theologically accurate is another issue. Evangelicals often add other doctrines to the definition of orthodoxy that we find in early patristic sources, as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have added doctrines of their own. But Evangelicals agree with that historical orthodoxy as far as it goes, and they argue for their additions to it. They don't just assert their additions without any accompanying argument. If you want to dispute those additions, you need to interact with the arguments for them rather than just asserting that the additions are wrong.
And the general principles I've laid out above are applicable even if you aren't advocating Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't know what your position is. That's why I asked some questions about your view. If you're advocating something other than Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, the same general principles apply.
DeleteThat the early church used 'orthodoxy' to define their beliefs is something even Ehrman can't deny.
ReplyDelete'Eastern' Orthodoxy uses the term because it is in direct continuity with the early church. We use the term because we have always used the term. We own it because we coined it. An article like this is just another example of Evangelicals trying to cash in on our reputation. You should stick to Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield and realise the connection between you and the early church is tenuious at best.
Yes, I have read the relevant texts - thanks for checking.
You are quick to point out that Tertullian and Ireneaus don't define themselves in Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox terms but how much more so for Reformed or Evangelical terms. I don't see any sola fides or sola scriptura or independent congregations or lack of sacraments or anything else that is distinctively Protestant in the early church. I took a look at some of the articles you linked to and none of them were particularly convincing.
Does that mean that sola fides is not part of the broad 'orthodoxy' you are referring to?
Shellee,
DeleteYou keep changing the subject, keep ignoring most of what I've said, and provide no documentation for your claims, including ones that are highly disputed.
You write:
"'Eastern' Orthodoxy uses the term because it is in direct continuity with the early church. We use the term because we have always used the term. We own it because we coined it."
Even if your claims were true, which they aren't, they're irrelevant. Ancient usage of a term doesn't define modern usage. The term "orthodoxy" is rarely used to refer to Eastern Orthodoxy in modern English, especially when the "o" isn't capitalized and the term is being used in the sort of context in which I used it.
Even if I had misused the term, which I didn't, so what? That would be a minor point and wouldn't justify your largely irrelevant responses that don't even attempt to interact with most of what I've said.
You write:
"An article like this is just another example of Evangelicals trying to cash in on our reputation."
Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't have much of a reputation in the United States, where I live. It's a tiny minority of the population. Few people have any significant interest in becoming Eastern Orthodox, and few think it defines the early church or the term "orthodoxy". I wasn't trying to cash in on your denomination's reputation. There isn't much cash there to be had. The reason why I keep distinguishing between orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy is because I don't want the association you keep making.
You go on:
"You are quick to point out that Tertullian and Ireneaus don't define themselves in Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox terms but how much more so for Reformed or Evangelical terms."
I don't claim they were Evangelicals, whereas Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do claim (inconsistently with each other) that the early church, and sometimes Irenaeus and/or Tertullian in particular, was Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Different claims place different burdens of proof on the claimants.
You write:
"I took a look at some of the articles you linked to and none of them were particularly convincing."
The difference is that my articles provide arguments and documentation, whereas your comment that "none of them were particularly convincing" provides neither.
I think I might an article called 'Modern Othodox Christianity is superior to its Modern Heretical Rivals'
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you agree that Irenaeus of Lyon wasn't an Evangelical. I totally agree with you.
I didn't want to respond in detail to all your articles because I'm not particularly interested in a prolonged exchange. I merely expressed my view that your articles aren't particularly convincing. A few out of context Patristic quotes with no historical context don't prove much. If I might add the Church Fathers you quote had a world view that was sacramental, hierarchical, traditional and ascetic - not exactly adjectives used to describe American Evangelical Christianity.
If you want the Orthodox point of view then look at a blog like 'Orthodox Reformed Bridge'.
You didn't answer my question. As you said Irenaeus is not an Evangelical but he is a representative of orthodoxy in the early church. Does that mean sola fides is not part of orthodoxy?
Shellee Young wrote:
Delete"I didn't want to respond in detail to all your articles because I'm not particularly interested in a prolonged exchange."
I didn't say that you should "respond in detail to all my articles". The problem is that you keep making so many claims, including highly disputed ones, without even attempting to provide any supporting arguments or documentation. You respond to material that is supported with arguments and documentation by making dismissive comments like:
"I merely expressed my view that your articles aren't particularly convincing."
You're offering "mere expressions". I'm offering arguments and documentation.
You write:
"If you want the Orthodox point of view then look at a blog like 'Orthodox Reformed Bridge'."
I've interacted with Eastern Orthodox individuals on this blog concerning the issues in question, including in some of the threads I've linked you to.
You write:
"You didn't answer my question. As you said Irenaeus is not an Evangelical but he is a representative of orthodoxy in the early church. Does that mean sola fides is not part of orthodoxy?"
Yes. As I explained earlier, the term "orthodoxy" is used in different ways in different contexts. My original post in this thread is set in the context of how critics of Christianity use the term when discussing orthodoxy and heresy, and I later cited Bart Ehrman as an example. I also told you that the orthodoxy in question is broader than Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I cited Irenaeus and Tertullian's concepts of orthodoxy. I asked you if you were familiar with the relevant passages. I linked you to articles in which I address these issues in more depth. It makes no sense, in that context, to ask if I'm including beliefs like sola scriptura and sola fide.
Generally speaking, scholars who refer to early orthodoxy don't define it in Evangelical terms, nor do they define it in Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox terms. Rather, they have a broader concept in mind that's consistent with all three groups. Similarly, critics of Christianity, like Ehrman, don't define orthodoxy as Evangelical, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. The passages in Irenaeus and Tertullian that I referred to don't include sola fide and sola scriptura, just as they don't include the distinctive elements of Eastern Orthodoxy. If you want us to believe that that's some sort of significant problem for Evangelicalism, then it would follow that it's also a significant problem for Eastern Orthodoxy. The difference is that I've denied from the start that it's a significant problem for Evangelicalism. I'm being consistent. You're not.
Hi Jason.
ReplyDeleteOff topic. An old friend of my made a comment that "the apostle Paul was a Pharisee until his death in Rome." Have you heard anyone make such a statement before? I have not questioned him on that yet. I've never heard that from a pulpit, or anyone I've read or heard before. Have you heard such a thing?
Thank you! Lamont
Hi Lamont,
DeletePaul refers to his background as a Pharisee and his agreement with the Pharisees on some issues in Acts and his letters. I'd ask your friend if that's what he has in mind. (I'd also ask him what he thinks Paul's alleged status as a Pharisee proves. If nothing of much significance is involved, I wouldn't put much effort into researching or discussing the topic.) Paul also agreed with the negative assessments of the Pharisees that we see elsewhere in the New Testament. He often expressed his unity and close relationship with the other apostles and non-apostolic authors of the New Testament documents (e.g., Mark, Luke), so his agreement with their criticisms of the Pharisees makes more sense than his disagreeing with what they said on the subject. He cites Luke's gospel as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18), which implies agreement with what Luke says about the Pharisees.