RSS
Home
The rise of orthodoxy
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Christianity has always held an emphasis on correct understanding. This is perhaps no more evident than the fact that a majority of its founding literature is devoted to theological understanding. This did not limit later misunderstandings from arising though. During the second and third centuries Christian theologians defended what they believed to be correct interpretations of Christian doctrine. This would ultimately lead to formal articulations of Christian doctrine in the fourth century, but it was that prior period in which the issues of orthodoxy and heresy first arose. In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Dr. Bart Ehrman lays out three views of how historians view this period of debate.
The first view he describes is the classical view of those theologians who are now considered orthodox by the church. For instance, Eusebius believed that only those teachings which could be traced to the original, apostolic teachings were correct. Heresy was therefore willful choosing major deviations from this original teaching drawn from outside the community of believers. Orthodoxy then takes on the very literal meaning “right option.”
In 1934 this view was challenged by Walter Bauer. Instead of a single belief that was willfully rejected, he argued that what would later become termed “heresy” was the original and only form of Christianity within any one region of the ancient world. Because there was no unified “orthodoxy,” only when one group exerted control over the other theological understandings was a majority opinion able to emerge.
Ehrman subscribes to a mediating position between the classical view and Bauer's rejection. He asserts that early Christianity was more diverse than even Bauer realized. What became as orthodoxy was only one among many interpretations of Christianity. But while Bauer asserted that the winning version of Christianity exerted power to exterminate other competing versions, Ehrman seems to nuance his option, defined as the opinio communis, as the opinion the community of believers held to be true. So while orthodoxy cannot be traced back to a single apostolic tradition, it was the variant which gained authority because the community believed it to be true.
Bauer and Ehrman both take seriously two true realities in early Christianity. The first is the existence of many different variations of interpretations, as evidenced by the archaeological discoveries of the last century. The second reality is that the early “orthodox” theologians were varied in their interpretations as well, even making statements which would later be condemned as heretical. This shows that there was no unified understanding, but does it necessarily mean that there is no objective truth presented during this time period?
Ehrman's interest is looking at how orthodox theologians changed Scripture to support their position. However the question he does not address is the devotion to Scripture in which these theologians are committed. Many theologians can make very complicated statements which take into account several sections of Scripture. What is evident is that every orthodox theologian is committed to basing their interpretation within Scripture, and that any changes they made to Scripture were a way to clarify a section which could be misused out of context.
He also points out that the church fathers used polemical attacks against heretics, which he believes destroys the moral authority of these theologians. He does not admit, though, that our understanding of early heresies is indeed vague and based upon very little evidence. If all the evidence we have of those heresies are found in these orthodox polemical attacks, then we must take them seriously. In conclusion his book and discussion of the topic is helpful, but Ehrman's concerns overshadow any critiques that might be offered. It would have been more helpful if he had taken these obvious challenges head on. It is believable that the opinio communis was based in a Scriptural understanding more than those other variants.
