The Heresy of Orthodoxy - Introduction

I want to return to a work that I've described earlier, "The Heresy of Orthodoxy," by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010). Kostenberger is author of A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, and also the commentary on the Gospel of John from the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. Dr. Michael Kruger is Associate Professor of New Testament and Academic Dean at RTS and author or co-author of a couple of scholarly works from Brill and Oxford that I won't be able to afford for a long time.

"The Heresy of Orthodoxy" is an affordable little book that should be snapped up and devoured by anyone who cares about an accurate and easy-to-understand history of both the history and the doctrines of the New Testament Church. It's important to note here that the New Testament provides not only "history" and "doctrine," but it is also foundational if we are to understand "the history of doctrines". All three of these are separate though related elements, and this work takes each of these seriously. I'd go so far as to say that what Jaroslav Pelikan is to "The History of the Development of Doctrine," this little work could be to "The History of the Foundations of Doctrine."

Introduction
The subtitle of this Introduction is "The Contemporary Battle to Recast the Origins of the New Testament and Early Church" and this is where the authors lay out the topics to be discussed. I've gone into that in some detail in a previous post, and so I won't go into that here, except to say that I have always believed that an understanding of the earliest church was a key to understanding what genuine Christianity was all about. This book gives a remarkable picture of the earliest church, right from the pages of the New Testament and the period immediately following.

Of course we want to believe what's true. And we believe that the word "truth" describes, to the best of our ability, "what actually happened." The authors work with the understanding that the New Testament is, among other things, a true and accurate record of the history of that time period. Others have argued the point, too. For example, Paul Barnett says that "Jesus and the first Christians are genuine figures of history and that they are faithfully and truthfully written about in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. These documents were written close in time to the events. They are historical and geographical in character." (Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament Reliable? Downer's Grove: Inter varsity Press ©2003).

Barnett presents a quotation from the second century (A.D.) historian Lucian, who described the task of the historian in his day:

Facts must not be carelessly put together, but the historian must work with great labour and often at great trouble to make inquiry preferably being present and an eyewitness; failing that he must rely on those who are incorruptible, and have no bias from passion, nor add or dimish anything (pg 13, citing Lucian, Quomodo 47).

Barnett goes on to analyze the historical value of the various New Testament witnesses as historians: Luke, John, Peter, Mark, Matthew. He compares the chronologies of Paul's letters with Acts and also compares and cross-checks New Testament events with extrabiblical mentions of those same events. His conclusion is that "we have not one but several independent sources, not all of them sympathetic to Jesus. If we accept the historicity of the Jewish War on the grounds of independent sources that are able to be crosschecked, it is inconsistent to doubt the essential historicity of Jesus and the early church."

The New Testament is not only history, but it is normative of doctrine and practice
But it is also true that we must put history in its proper perspective. Steve Hays has also helpfully recommended an article by Richard Bauckham, The New Testament and the Episcopacy, which discusses not only the value of the New Testament as "evidence for historical reconstruction", but also its foundational value for establishing a Scriptural norm for the church. In fact, Bauckham notes that at times, "the use of New Testament writings as evidence for historical development ('what actually happened') is being confused with the function of Scripture as theological norm."

If Scripture is to function as Scripture, i.e. as norm for the church's belief and practice, then what matters is not what historians can reconstruct behind and around the texts, but what the texts present as normative to their readers. This requires a canonical rather than a historicist reading of the texts. It must take seriously the whole canon, not a canon within the canon, and must avoid confusing date with value. Chronology will matter only if and in the way that the texts themselves give it significance. Such an approach does not make all historical considerations irrelevant, nor does it solve all problems, but it avoids making highly debatable historical reconstructions, of which the church until modern times had no inkling, necessary to the New Testament’s functioning as normative Scripture.

So what we see is that Scripture, and Scripture alone, has a normative role in determining the doctrine and practice of the church. Later writings are not normative in the way that the Scripture is normative. While we know that "traditions" show divergence from these Scriptural norms -- and we can sometimes value these traditions -- we must question those "traditions" that seemingly contradict what is written in the Scriptures. (For example, I've cited Clement's misunderstanding of New Testament "grace," and also his virtual contradiction of Hebrews 10. The rise of the papacy in the 4th century is also a "tradition" that (a) has no basis in Scripture and (b) actually conflicts with it.)

Bauer's foundational presupposition is, "Must not the historian, like the judge, preside over the parties and maintain as a primary principle the dictum audiatur et altera pars [let the other side also be heard]? When one side cannot, because of anxiety, confusion, or clumsiness, gain proper recognition, is it not the obligation of the judge–and, mutatis mutandis of the historian–to assist it, as best he can, to unfold its case instead ofsimply submitting to the mental agility and firmness, the sagacity and loquacity of the other?" (Bauer, Intriduction, xxi).

He concludes "we can determine adequately the significance the "heretics" possessed for nascent and developing Christianity only when we, insofar as it is possible, place ourselves back into the period in which they went about their business, and without hesitation cast all our preconceived ideas aside."

This is the "diversity" issue that the authors discuss. The notion that every idea, no matter its source, no matter how far-fetched it is, must be given not only a fair hearing, but the presumption of equality with every other text, no matter how legitimate and widely accepted they are. Thus, as the authors state the Bauer/Ehrman thesis:

In the first century, claim Bauer, Ehrman, and other adherence to the "diversity" doctrine, there was no such thing as "Christianity" in the singular), but only Christianities (in the plural), different versions of belief, all of which claimed to be Christian" with equal legitimacy. The traditional version of Christianity that later came to be known as orthodoxy is but the form of Christianity espoused by the church in Rome, which emerged as the ecclesiastical victor in the power struggles waged during the second through the fourth centuries. (16)

What Kostenberger and Kruger work to show is not that there were "Christianities," but indeed, there was one New Testament church, with a definite structure and practice. [And I will say it, yes, this New Testament church of history looks nothing like the reconstruction offered by those Roman Catholics who like to project the structure of today's Roman church back onto the earliest church.]

So, while the authors work from a presupposition that the New Testament is an accurate and reliable record of history, they also work from the presupposition that it is normative for the doctrine and practice of the church.

A Brief Carl Trueman review of "The Heresy of Orthodoxy"

It's one thing to work through the historical situation of the early papacy, and show how the thing was *not* there, not in the Scriptures, not in the belief or practice of the early church. It's quite a different thing to reconstruct what *was* there. And that's one of the things I like so much about this work, "The Heresy of Orthodoxy."

Carl Trueman has written a very brief review of this work that I wanted to pass along:

the authors are both New Testament scholars; and their book tackles the influential thesis of Walter Bauer, that what came to triumph in early Christianity was not some primeval orthodoxy but merely one competing vision of Christianity among a host of others. It just happened to be the one that won…

In such a context, this book is a gem, giving both a summary of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis and offering good, solid evidence of its manifold flaws. In the process, the authors deal with the development of the canon, textual transmission, and the relevant bibliography for those who wish to read further. It also has a very helpful concluding chapter (albeit, in my opinion, too brief -- like young Twist, I wanted more cultural criticism, Beadle Kruger!) on why the work of such as Ehrman and Pagels, with its emphasis on diversity, is so appealing in the contemporary cultural context. The book is also thoroughly footnoted throughout, giving plenty of pointers for further reading. All in all, an extraordinarily helpful volume.

Keep in mind as you're reading this, as you see the words "Bauer/Ehrman thesis" or "the flawed thesis of Walter Bauer," you can substitute "the flawed thesis of Newman's development" or "the flawed assumptions about the earliest church made by Roman apologists today."

The work is a sound, biblical based, historically accurate response to all of those things.

Covenant, Canon, and the New Testament Church

Now that the fireworks of the last few days have subsided, I've wanted to get back to Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's (2010) "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" (Wheaton IL: Crossway).

As I noted in a previous post, while the stated topic of this work was to deal with what's known as the "Bauer/Ehrman" thesis, it also has extraordinary implications for Bryan Cross's unique and novel concept of "Ecclesial Deism". As he has noted:

Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.” Deism is distinct from theism in that theism affirms not only that God created the world, but also that God continually sustains and governs all of creation.

Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.

There are a couple of things wrong with this definition. First, Bryan anachronistically reads the concept of "magisterium" back into the earliest church. He also misunderstands not only what "the church" is (or rather, he superimposes his own impressions back on it, but he also misunderstands (or mis-states) what's actually being promised to "the one true church" in John 16:13.

In reality, it was not a "magisterium" that the earliest church had, but the concept of "covenant", and while the title of this work deals with heresy and orthodoxy, it could, in fact, have been entitled "Canon and Covenant."

The authors not only identify core orthodox doctrines (and locate the church within the doctrines -- not vice versa), but they also describe how the concept of covenant always brought with it the requirement for a written copy of the covenant documents -- which not only were kept in holy shrines, but which were also to be "read publicly at regular intervals."

"The new covenant documents are no exception to this overall pattern," they write. "The religious world of Judaism had already anticipated the reality" not only of God's covenant in Israel, but a "New Covenant" sealed by Christ's blood. And they point to the "clear expectation that this new covenant, like the old covenant, would be accompanied by the appropriate written texts to testify to the terms of the new arrangement that Gd was establishing with his people." So, rather than being an after thought, "the canon is a concept that has been indelibly part of the life of God's people from the very state of the nation of Israel," and thus, they were a part of the thinking of the earliest communities of Christians.

This work is incredibly valuable, as well, in providing a Scripture-based account that's totally at odds with the "ecclesial deism" assumption.

Because this work is so helpful, my hope is to work through this book in a way that is a bit longer than one might expect in a simple review.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction: The Contemporary Battle to Recast the Origins of the New Testament and Early Christianity.

Part 1: The Heresy of Orthodoxy: Pluralism and the Origins of the New Testament

1. The Bauer-Ehrman Thesis: Its Origins and Influence

2. Unity and Plurality: How DIverse Was Early Christianity?

3. Heresy in the New Testament: How Early Was It?

Part 2: Picking the Books: Tracing the Development of the New Testament Canon

4. Starting in the Right Place: The Meaning of Canon in Early Christianity

5. Interpreting the Historical Evidence: The Emerging Canon in Early Christianity

6. Establishing the Boundaries: Apocryphal Books and the Limits of the Canon

Part 3: Changing the Story: Manuscripts, Scribes, and Textual Transmission

7. Keepers of the Text: How Were Texts Copied and Circulated in the Ancient World?

8. Tampering with the Text: Was The New Testament Text Changed Along the Way?

Concluding Appeal: The Heresy of Orthodoxy in a Topsy-Turvy World

Again, while the authors make these points in the context of interacting with the Bauer/Ehrman thesis, point-by-point, I found myself agreeing with them as point-by-point, they address what Roman Catholics continually represent as the key core weakness of Protestantism, "that 'Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.'"

The Reformers' doctrine of Scripture is not only incredibly biblical, but it is also the case that "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass," including the development of the canon as a means of guiding His one true church into all truth.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy

I've been tied up with some other things over the last few days, and my intention is to respond to Nick's charge of "Deism" very carefully (because, among other things, he links to the Called to Communion article on "Ecclesial Deism," which I think is very weak because the charge is based on assumptions and not very good assumptions at that, and because Newman's theory of development is involved.)

But in the meantime, I've been reading Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger's (2010) "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" (Wheaton IL: Crossway). While this work discusses the early church in the context of what they call the "Bauer/Ehrman" thesis, it also has (I think) extraordinary implications for people like Nick and Bryan Cross, who want to sweep away any notion that Protestants can lay claim to the early church and early Christianity as their own.

Briefly, the "Bauer/Ehrman" thesis holds that "orthodox Christianity" "developed" (probably in the second century), and defeated "heresies" (which Ehrman might call "competing Christianities," i.e., doceticism, gnosticism, etc.)

Kostenberger and Kruger do several things: they note that Evangelical (and other) scholars have replied vigorously, to the point that Bauer was discredited before Ehrman (popularly) resurrected him.

Second, they also note that both Bauer and Ehrman seem to ignore the actual New Testament texts -- the fact that these are much, much earlier, and they do demonstrate "core component of Christian orthodoxy--the belief in the divinity of Jesus and worship of him as Lord and God--was not forged in the second century on the anvil of various Christians sects. Instead, such a belief dates back to the very origins of Christianity during and immediately subsequent to Jesus' earthly ministry" (65).

This is hardly "deism" or "ecclesial deism" of any kind. The authors root this high Christology, as well as "Paul's Gospel," "Liturgical Materials That Precede the New Testament" (1 Cor 15, Phil 2:6, Col 1:15-20) and even "Apostolic Authority" squarely in the context of the Old Testament covenants and "Redemptive history."

"Authority was not vested in an ecclesiastical body (as Roman Catholics hold) but in the quality of Christological confession made possible by divine revelation (see Matt. 16:13-19) (101, emphasis in original).

Throughout, both the early Christian community and the canon of the New Testament are rooted, early and often, within the structure of God's covenants with Israel. "Canon, therefore, is the inevitable result of covenant." (112)

"written texts [the NT documents] were the central manner in which God testified to the terms of his covenant relationships within ancient Israel, and thus would be the expected means of communication in the context of the new covenant. As soon as early Christians recognized that God's redemptive acts in Jesus Christ were the beginnings of the new covenant--and they recognized this very early--then they naturally would have anticipated written documents to follow that testified to the terms of the covenant. (see Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, 14, Heb 7:22, 8:6) (113, emphasis in original).

I'm not finished with this work yet, but my sense is that this study is a kind of manifesto along the lines of Machen's "Liberalism and Christianity." It is short, thorough, well-argued, and thick with the kind of historical and exegetical detail that is lacking in the sweeping generalities of people like Nick, Bryan Cross, and John Henry Newman. And it provides the foundational kind of (covenantal) structure, across the New Testament and the period of the Apostolic Fathers that will give Protestants an effective and biblical way to understand the "developments" of this whole period of time.

That New Testament scholars of the caliber of Kostenberger are turning their sights on these aspects of the history of the earliest church -- including this period of the Apostolic Fathers -- is just thrilling to me. This work is only the beginning; I trust that we will see more. I don't think I can recommend this work highly enough.