Bart Ehrman - The Ortodox Corruption of the Scripture

8/13/2019 Bart Ehrman - The Ortodox Corruption of the Scripture

1/328


2/328

T h eO r th o d o x C o r ru p tio n of S cr ipture


3/328

his page intentionally left blank


4/328

T h e O rth o d o x C o rru p tio no fSc r ip tu reTheE ffec to fE arly

ChristologicalCo ntroversie so ntheTex tof the Ne wT e stam en t

B A R T D .E H R M A N

O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T YP R E S SNew Y or kO xf o r d


5/328

Oxford Univers i t y PressO xf o rd Ne w Yo r k

A th ens A uc klan dB angk o k B om ba yCalc ut ta Cap eT ow nDa r e sSalaam D elh i

FlorenceHon gK on g Ist anb u l K ara c h iK u a l a L um pu r M adra s M ad ri d M elb o u rn eMexicoCit y N a iro b i P ari s Singap o r e

TaipeiToky oToront oan d assoc iate d companie si n

Berlin Ib ad a nCopyright 1993byBartD .E h rm a n

Firstp u b l i s h e di n1993byO x f o r d Uni vers i t yPress ,Inc.198 M a d is o n A v e nu e ,NewY o rk ,N e wY o r k10016Firsti ss u e d a s a n O x f o r dU n i v e r si t y Press paperback,1996

Oxfordi s aregiste red t radem ar ko fO x f o r dU n i ve r si t yPress ,Inc.A llrights reserved. N op a r to f t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n m a y b e re p ro d u c e d ,

storedin a retrievalsystem,o rtransmitted,in anyf o r mo r b y anymeans,e lec tronic , mechanic al , photocopying, recording ,o ro t h e r w i se ,

w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r p e rm i ss io n o f O x f o r d U n iv e r si t yPress .

T r a ns la t io n s o f t h e N e w T e st am e n t a n d t h e A p o s to l i c F a th e r s a r e t h e a u t h o r ' sown . Translationsof th ep a t r i s t i cw r i t er s includingJu s t in , I renaeus, Hippolytus ,an dT e r t u ll ia n a r ef r o m t h e

Ante-NiceneFathers (eds . Alexander Rober t san dJ am e s D o n a ld s o n ; E d i n b u r g h ;T & T ClarkAmeri ca nR e p r i n t E d i ti o n ; G r a n d R a p id s :E e r dm a n s ,1 9 71 ) , unless o therwise indicated. Quota -t ions f ro mE u s e bi u sar e d ra w n f r o mG . A . Wil l iamson, Euse bi us:T h e H isto ry o f th e C h u rc hf rom Chr is t t oC o n s t a n ti n e {rev .a n d ed .A n d r e w L o u t h ; L o n d o n : P e n g u in , 19 8 9 ). T h es e v a r i o u s

t r ans la t ionshave been occ as ional ly m o d i f i e di norder t o mak e them more inc lus ive.T heJ BL s ty l eshee tha sb e e n u se df o r al l abbreviat ions .

Port ionso f th e b oo k in c o r p o ra t e m a t e ri a l ,s l ig h t lyrevised, from severalo f t h eau thor ' s earl ie rar t icles ,a l l us e d he r e w i t h t h e p e r m i ss io n o f t h e p u b l i s h e r s , gratefullya c k n ow l ed ge d : " 1 J o h n 4. 3and th e O r t h o d o xC o r r u p t io no f Scr ip ture ,"ZNW7 9 ( 1 9 8 8 )221-43;"The Cup, th eBread,an dth eSalvi f i c E f fec to fJesus 'D e a t hi n L u k e - A c t s , "S B L S P( 19 91 )576-91; "TheT e xt o f M a r k i nthe H a n d so f t h e O r t h o d o x , "BiblicalH e r m e n e u t ic s i nH is tor ical Pe rspec t iv e ( e ds . M ar k B u rr o w s

andP a u l R o re m ;P h i la d e lp h i a :Fortress,1991 ) 19-31 , f o u n d a ls o i nLQ5 ( 1 9 9 1 )143-56.Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Pub icat io n Data

E h r m a n ,B a r t D .T h eO r t ho d o x c o rr u p ti o no fsc r ip ture : th ee f fe c to f early

Christological cont rovers ies on th e t ex t of the Ne w Tes tamen t /Bar t D . E h r m a n .

p . c m . In c lu de s b ib lio gra ph ic al re fe re nc esand i n d e x .I S B N - 1 3 978-0-19-510279-6( P b k . )

1 . B ib le . N .T . C r it ic i sm , T e x tu a l . 2 . Je su s C h ri st H i st o r y o fd o c t r i n e s E a r l yc h u r c h ,c a.30-600.3 .H er es ie s , C h r i st i a n H i s t o r y E a r l y c h u r c h ,c a.30-600.I .T it le .

BS2325.E47199 3 2 2 5 '06 d c 2 092 -2 8 60 7

15 1 7 1 9 1 8 16 .Printed in the U n i t e dStateso fAmeric aon a c i d - f r e epaper


6/328

RichardL . E h rm a nin memoriam


7/328



8/328

Acknowledgmen tsM yp e rs o na lan di ns tit u t io n a l d eb t s h av e gro w n d ra m a t ic a l l y w it hth e w r it -in go f th i swork ,an d h er e I w o ul d lik e t o mak e a gra te fu l , i f p artial , ac -k no w le dg me nt . T h e U niv ersit y o f N o rt h C aro lin a a t Ch ap e l H il l h a s b ee ns u p p o rt iv e o n a l l le ve ls : t h e Fa c u lt y R e se arc h C ou n c i l g e ne ro u s l y p ro v id e dfu ndingt h ro u g ha F a c u lt y D e v elo p m e n t G r a n ti n1 989 ,an d th e In s t it u t e fo rA r t s an d H um an it i e s , un d e r t h e dir ec t io n o fR ue lTyson,a w ard e d m ef a c u lt yfel lowshipsf o r th esu m m e ro f198 9an d th e sp rin go f1992 , e as in gm yt e ac h -ing b u rd e nan dp r o vi din ga f o ru mf o r in t e ll e c t ua l disc o urse w i t h sc h o lar s i nother f ie lds a surpr is ingly raretreati n m o d e r n a c ad e m ia . I a m a ls o o b lig e dto m y graduate researc h assistants ,C .W. Thompsonan d K i mHaines Ei tzen ,wh o p r o v e d assid uo u s i n g at h e r in g , c h e c k in g , an d e v a lua t in g b ib lio g rap h ic alit e m s, an d , ab o v e a ll , t o m y c o lle ag ue s i n t h e D e p art m e n t o f R e lig io u s S t ud -ies,w h oh a v e t en de re d th e i r m o ra lan dm at e r ia l sup p o r t e v e r y s te p a lo n gth eway .Ia me sp e c ia ll yg ra te f u l t o m yw ife ,C in dy , w h os e u nd e rs ta nd in gan dgood h u m o r gre w w it h th e le ngt h o f th e m a nu sc rip t , an d t o m y d au g ht er ,Kelly,an dso n , D ere k , w h os e c ap ac it yf o r fu n an dzes tfo rlif e h a v e a lw a y sp ro vide d a h e alt h y a nt id ot e fo r t h e lo n g h ou r s t h a t Da d w a s s h u t u p i n h i sstudyo rlo s to na n ot h e r p l an e t .

Iw o u l d lik e t o e xte n d m y sp ec ia l t ha nk s t o frie nd s an d te ac h er s w h ohave rea d part so f th em a nu s c rip t :m y tw op e rsp ic a c io u s co lle ag ue s , P e te rK a u f m a nan d L au ri e M a f f ly - K i p p , e x tr ao r d in a r y fo r t h e i r r e c o g n it io no f in -elegance; E l izabe t h Clark an d Bruc e Metzger , whos e seasone d judgment s havealwaysb ee n gra c io u s l y e xt en de d a n dg ra t e fu l l yr ec e iv e d ; an d e sp e c iall y Jo e lMarcus ,no w o f th eU n iv e rs it yo fG la sg ow ,an dD al e M a rt in ,o fD u ke ,tw oexceptionalN e wT estam en t sc ho lar s w it h m ig ht yre dp ens ,w h oc are fu ll yp o re d o ve r e ve r y w o r d o f th e m an u sc rip t , sa vin g m e fro m n u m e ro u s egre -g io us e rr o r s an dinfe lic it ie so f e xp re ss io n .Those t h a t r em a i n c a n b e ch alk e du p t o m yw illf u l disp o sit io n i nr ef u sin g( i ngoo dh e re tic a lf a sh io n ) t o tak etheir sag e advice .

I h av e de d ic a t e d t h i s wo r kt o th e m e m or yo f m y f a t h e r ,w h o di d no tliv eto se e th e co mp le tio n o f th e p ro je c t , b u twhos ei nt an gib l e pre se nc e c a n b e


9/328

viii A c k n o w l e d g m e n t sfeltt h ro u g h o u t . A b o v e all ,h e t au g h tm e t h a t h ar d w o r kc a n b e rew a r di ng ,t h at h u m o r a lw a y s h a s a p la c e , an d t h a t so m e c o nv ic t io n s ar e w o rt h y o f agood fight.C h a p e lH il l, NorthC a r o li n a B .D.E .F e b r u a r y1993


10/328

Conten tsIntroduction,x i

1. T h eTex to fS c r ip t u r ein a n A g e o fDissent :E a rl yChrist ian Struggle sf o rOrthodoxy,32.A n t i- A d o pt io n is ti c C o r r u p t io n so f Scr ip ture ,473. An t i- Sep a ra t io n is t C o r rup t io n so f Scr ip ture ,1194 .A n t i- D o c e ti c C o rru p t io n so f Sc r ip tu r e ,1815.A n t i- P a t rip assian is t C o r rup t io n so fScr ip ture ,26 26. Th eOrthodo xC o r ru p t o r so fScr ip ture ,274

Bibliographyo f Se c o nd ar y W o rk s C it ed , 2 8 5In dex o f Sc r ip tu re , 3 0 3Indexo f M o de r n A u t h o rs , 3 0 6Indexo fS u b je c t san dA n c ien t So urc es ,311


11/328



12/328

In troduct ion

Thisi s a boo k ab ou t text san dt h e i r t ra nsm iss io n , ab o u tth ew ord so f th eemergingN e wTe s tam e n tan d h o w t he y c a m et o b e changedb yscribe so f th eearlyCh r is t ia n centuries .M ythesi sc a n b e state d simply : scribe s occ asionall yalteredth ew o r d so fthe ir sacre dtext st o m a k e th e m m o r e p at e nt l yorthodoxa nd t o p r e v e n t t h ei r m isus eb yCh r is t ian sw h oesp o use d ab e r r an t v ie ws .Textual critic sar ec o m m o nl y c h arg ed no t alway sunfairl yan do fte nf ro mam o ng th ei r o w n ra nk s w it h disre gardin g re searc h do n e i n o th e rfields .N ar r o wl yf oc usin go n th e m anu sc rip t s o f th e N e w Testam ent , th e yof te nneglect th erealia o fecclesiastica lan dsoc ia l h isto r y th a tc a ne lu c i da t e fe a -tureso f th etext .A n dre st ric t in g t h e i r th e o re t ic a lf ie l d o fv is io nt om eth od se sp o use d b y p h ilo lo g y a n d B ib lic a l h ig h e r c r it ic is m , t h e y b yp as s i m p o rt a n tf o u nda t i o na lq u est io ns , su c ha sw h a ti tm ig h t m ea nt ore fe rt o th e"corrup-tion"o f a t ex ttha ti so f fh an d edlyc alle dth e"original."

If t he s e ch arg e sar ele ve le d ag a in s tth ep re se n t st ud y ,i tw il l h a v e f aile dinon e o f it sp r incipa l designs .T oso m e ex te nt ,th est ud yi sm e an tt od ispe lth e no t io n t h a tN e wTestamen t tex tua l c r it ic is mi s a tb es ta narc an e ,i f rudi-mentari lynecessary , disc ip line , o f l it t le in teres t t o th e en terpr ise s o f exegesis ,theh ist o r yo ftheology ,an d th esocia l h is tor yo fear ly Chr is t ianity let a lon et o b ro a de r in te re st s o f sc h o la r s i n th e h u m a n it ie s , s u c h a s t h e h is to r y o f la t eant iqui ty ,th e u s e o f lit era tu r e i n re ligio u s po lem ic s , an d th e c onstru a l o ftexts.T o b es u re , th ee x p lic i t go a lo f th estu d yi si tsel f t radit ional .I a m in t e r -e sted i n se ein g h o w s c rib e smodif ie dt h e w ord s o f Sc rip tu r e th e y inh erite d .T h e m e th o d sI u s e t oa t t ai n th i s g o a lar ea lso t r ad it io n a l : t h e ya r e th ecr it ica lp ro c e d u re s c u s t o m a r il y u se d t o e s ta b lis h a n ytext ,c lassica l o r b ib l ical . Bu t Iam le ss c o nc e rn e d wi t h in t e rp r e t in gth ew o rd so f th e Ne w T e st am e n ta st h e yc a me f ro mth ep e n so f it sa u t h o r s t h a n w i t h se ein gho w t h es e w o rd s c am et ob e a lt ere d i n t h e c o u rs e o f th e i r t ra n sc r ip t io n . M o re o ve r , m y u n de r st a nd in goft h i s pro c es s o f t ra ns m is sio n , t h a t is , th e w a y I c o n c e p tu a liz e s c rib a l alt e r -a tio n s o f a text ,d e riv e s le s s f ro m t ra dit io n a l c at eg orie s o f p h ilo lo g y t h a nf romre c en t de v e lo p m e n t s i n t h e fie l d o f l it e r a r y t h eo r y .In C h ap te r1 Isk e tc hth eso c io - h is to ric a l c o n te x tf o r th ep h e no m e no nIwillc a ll , a n d ju st if yc a llin g , t h e"orthodo xc o r ru p t io n o f Sc rip tu re . " H er e Ideal wi t h th e theologica l debate so f th ese c o n dan dt h i r d C h r is tia n c e nt urie s ,


13/328

xiiI n t r o d u c t i o nap e rio do f in te n s e ri va lr y a m o n g v ar io u s g ro u p so f Christ ian sw h oadvo -ca ted d iverg en t w a y so fu nder s t a ndin g t h e i r r e li gi o n .B y th e f ou rt hc e nt ury ,o n e o f th e s e groupsh a d ro u te d th eopposition , co-optingfo ri tsel ft h e desig -na t ion"orthodoxy "an d e ffec t ivel ym a r g in a liz in g th er iv a lp a rt ie sa s"here -sies." P ro p o ne nt so ff o u r th - c e n t u r y o rt h od o x y in sist e do n th ea n tiq u it yo ft he ir v ie w s an d e m b ra c e d c e rt ai n au t h or s o f t h e p re c ed in g ge ne ra tio n s a sthe iro w n th eo lo gic a l f ore b ears . M y st ud y f oc u se s o nthes ee a rlie r C h ris -t ia n s t h erepresenta t ive s o f a n " incipien torthodoxy"becaus em o s t s c riba lal terat ionso f th e N e wT est am e n t t ex t o rig in at e d d u rin g th et im eo f t he i rd is pu t es , t h a t is , i n t h e a nt e -N icen e ag e .

In p a rt ic u l a r , t hi s c h a p te r e xp lo re s t h e w a y sproto-orthodoxCh r i st i an susedl it e ra t u r ei nt h e i r ear l y st ru g gle sfo rd o m in an c e ,a s th e y p ro du c e dp o -lemicalt re atise s , f orge d su p p o rt in g do c u m en t s u n de r th enam e so fe a rl ie ra u th o rit ie s, c olle cte d ap o st oli c w o rk s in t oa na u t h o ri ta t iv e c an o n ,an d in -sisted o ncer ta i n hermeneutica l pr inciple sf o r t h einterpretat io no ft hes e w o rks .T h e do c u m e nt s o f th i s ne w c a no n c o ul d b e c irc u la te d , o f c ou rse , on l y t o t h eextentthat t h e y w er e co pied . A n d th e y w er e co pie d b y w a rm - blo o ded scr ibe sw h o w e r e in t im a t e l y famil iarw it h t h e de b at e s o ve r d oc t rin etha tm a d e th e i rscribal lab o r sa d e s id e ra tu m .I t w a sw it hi n th i sm ilie uo f c o nt ro v ers y t h a tscribesso m et im e s ch a nge d t h e i r s c r ip t u r a ltextst o m ak e th e msa yw h a t th e yw e re a lr e a d y k n o w n t omean.I n t h e t ech nica l pa r la nc e o f t ex t u a lcr i tic ism wh ic h I retainf o r it s significant ir o nies t h e s escr ibe s"corrupted" t h e i r t ext sfort he olo gic a l re aso ns . C h ap te r1 c o nc lu de s w it ha propose dt he ore tic a lf ra m ew o rk f o ru nde r s t andi n g th i s k i n do fscribal act ivi ty.T h e b ul ko f th es tu d y e xa m in e s th et e x t u a l t ra d it io no f th e N e wT esta -m e n t f o rva r i a n t r eading s t h a t appe a r t oh a v e been genera ted w i t h i n th ec on -texto forthodo xpo lem ics ,spec if i c al l yi n th eare ao fChris to logy . Usin gru -br ics p r o vide db y th eorthodo xheres io logis t s themselves ,I devo t e eac ho ft h re e c h a p t e r s t o a d if f e r e n t ch r is to lo gica l"heresy"o f th e p e rio d : ad o pt io n -ism, th e v ie w t ha t C h ris t w a s a m a n , b u t n o t G o d ; do c etism , t h e v ie wthath ew a s G od , b u t no t a m an ; an d se parat io nism , th e vie w th a t th e d iv in eChristan d th e h u m a n J es u s w e r e d i st in c t b ein gs . E a c h c h a p te r d esc rib e sth eheresy inques t io n(a tleas ta su nders t o o db y it sorthodoxo p p o n e n ts ) ,b ef or ediscussing t ex t u a l va r ia n t s t h at appe a r t o h a v e been c r eat ed o u t o foppositiont o it . I ns om e i ns ta nce s t hi s r eq u i re s ex tensive t ex t - c rit ica l a rg u m e nt a t io nt odistinguish th ee a rlie s tf or mo f th etex tf ro m m o dif ic a t io n sef fec tedd u rin gth eco u r s eo f it s transmission.Ihave provideda propor t iona tely grea ter t rea t -m e n tt o v a r i an t s o f sp e c ia l in t e re s t t o N e w T e st am e n t exe ge sis , th e d e ve lo p -m e n t o f Chris t ia n doct r ine ,an d th eh i st o r yo fi n t e rpr e t a t io n .A m uc hb rie f e rf if t h c h ap t e r c o n sid er s t e x tu a l v ar ia n t s t h a t a p p e a r t o h a v e a ris e n i n o p p o si -t io n t o t h e p at rip a ss ia nis t C h rist olo gie s o f t h e la t e se co n d a n d e ar l y th i r dc e n tu rie s. C h ap t e r6 s u m m ariz e sm y m e th o d o lo g ic a lan dm a t e ria l c o nc lu -sions,an dp ro f fe r sso m e su g gest io n s co ncernin g th es ignif icanc eo f th es tu d yforu n d e rs ta n din g th ed e b at e s b e t w e e n h e re s yan do r th o do x y i nearl yCh r is -t iani ty .Becauset h i s b o o ki s in tende dno to nl y fo rt ex t u a l s ch o la r sb u ta ls of o r a


14/328

I n t r o d u c t i o n xii ivarietyo f pe rso n s w h o m ig h t fin d th e issu e s i t raise s o f so m e re le vanc e t othe iro w nacade mi c interests,I suggest tw od if f e r e n tstrategie so freading.Fo rt ho se w h o ar e no t sp e c ialist s i n t h e te x t o r in t e rp r e ta t io n o f th e N e w T e st a -m ent ,w h o ar e p r im a r il y in te re st e di nsuc h th ing sa s th eh ist or yo fe arl yChristianity, th ed e v elo p m e n to freligiou s polem ics ,o r th ee ff e ct so ft ext so nre ad ers, I su gge s t re ad in g C h ap t e r 1 , th e in tro du c t or y an d c o nc lu d in g sec -t io ns o f eac h o f th e m a i n c h ap te rs , an d th e c on clu sio n (C h ap te r 6) . T hes eport ionso f th eboo kar er e lat ive l yfreef ro m te c h n ic a l j ar go n ; t o ge th e r t h e yse t th e t he o re t ic a l f r am e w o r kan d h is torica lcontex to f th e st u dy , explai ni ngrea ter deta i lm yo ver ar ch i n g t hesis , descr ib e th ek in d so fdat aI h a v e u se dt o e st ab lis h t h i s th esis , su m m a r iz e t h e c o nc lu sio n s th a t I t h i n k w e c a n d ra wf romth es e d at a ,an dre fle c to n th eb ro ad e r signif icanc eo ft h es e co nc lu sio n sfor textu a l cr it ics , exegetes , theologians ,an dh i s to r ia n so f la t e a n t iq u i t y .O nth eotherhand , textua l scholars an d exegete s wh o ar e in teres te d i n exam iningt h e ev id en c e a n d e v a lu a t in g th e a rg u m e nt s I h a v e a dd uc e d w il l w a n t t o re a dthedetaile d exposit io no feac h c h ap t er .I ti sh e r e th a tI addres sa n u mb e ro ftextual an d exegetica l issue s that hav e intrigued scholars through ou t th e mode rne ra, a n d de m o n st ra t e o n a c as e b y c as e b asi s h o w proto-orthodo xscribe s oft h e seco nd a n d t h ir d cen tu r ie smod if i e d t h e i r t ex t s o f S crip t u r e t o m a k e t h emc o n f o r m m o r e clo se l y w it h t h ei ro w nchr is to logica lb e lie f s ,e f f e c tin gt h ere b ythe"orthodoxc o rr u p tio no fS cr ip t u re . "


15/328



16/328

T heO r th o d o x Co r ru p tio n o f Sc ripture


17/328



18/328

1T h e T ex t o f S cr ip ture in an Age o fD isse n t: Early C h r istian Struggle sfo rO r th o d o x yChristianity i n th ese co n dan d t h ir d c e nt u rie sw a s i n a r e m a r k a b l e st at eo ff lu x. T o b esu re ,a t n opo in ti n it sh is to r yh a s th e re l ig io n co ns tit u t e damonoli th .B u t th ed iv e rs e m a n if e s t at io n so f it s f irs t th re e h u nd re dy ears w h e t h e ri nt e rm so fsocia l s t ruc tures , re l ig iou s prac t i ces ,o r id e o lo g ie s h av eneverb e e n re p lic a te d .Nowhere i st h i s se e n m o r e c le arl y t h a ni n th er ea l mo ft h eo lo g y .I n th esecondan dt h ir d c e nt u rie s t h e r e w ere ,o fco u rse , Ch r is t ia n sw h o b e lie v e d inonlyoneG o d ;others ,h o w ever , c laim e d t h a t t h er e w er etwoGods;yeto t h er ssubscr ibedt o 30 , o r365 ,o rm o re . So m e C h rist ian s ac c ep te dth eH eb re wSc r ip t ur e s a s a r eve lat io no f th e o n et ru e G od ,th es acre d po ssessio no f al lbelievers;o t he r s c la im e d t h a t th e S c rip t u re s ha d b e e n in sp ire d b y a ne vi lde -ity.Som e Christ ian s believe dtha tG o d ha d c reate d th e w orl d an d w a ssoongoingt ore de e mit ;o th er s sai dtha tGo dn e it he rhadc re at e dth ew o rl dno rh a d eve r h a d an y dea ling s w it h it . S o m e Ch r is ti an s be lieve dthatC h ris t w a sso m eh o w b o t h a m a n an dG o d ; ot h er s sai d t h a th e w as am a n ,b u t no tG od ;o th e rs c la im e d t h a th e w a sG od ,b u t no t a m a n ; ot h e r s in sist e d t h a th e w a sam a n w h o h a d bee n t em po r a ri ly inh a bi t e d by G o d . S om e Ch r i st ia ns be lievedthat Chris t 's deat h ha d brough t abou t th e salvatio n of the world; o ther s claimedt ha t h i s d ea t h ha d n o b earin g o n sa lv at io n ; y e t o th er s alle ge d th a t h e ha dnevereve n died .Few o f th es e v a r ia n t th eo lo gie s w e n t u nc o n te st ed , a n d th e c o nt ro ve rsie stha t ensue d impacte d th e surviving l itera ture on v i r tua ll yever ylevel.T h e on elevelI w i l lb ec o nc e rn e d w i t hi n th ep re se n t st u d y in vo lv e sth e m a nu s c rip t sof th ee v o l vin g C h rist ia n S c rip t ure s w h a t w o u l d e v e nt u all yb ec a lle d th eNewT es t a m ent .Th e NewT est am en t m a nu scr ip t s w er enotp ro d u c e d im p e r -sonallyb ym a c h in e s c a p ab l eo ff lawles sr ep ro du c t io n . T h e y w er e co pie db yh a n d ,b y l iving,b r e a t h in g h u m a n b ein g sw h ow e r e de ep l yrootedi n t h ec on -ditionsan dco n t ro versie so ft he i r day .D i d th es c rib es ' po le m ic a l c on te xt sinf luence th e w a yt h e y t ra nscr ibe d t h e i r sacre dS c r ip t u r es ?T h eb u rd e no f th ep r e se n t st u d y i st h a t t h e y did , t h a t th e olo gic a l d isp u te s ,speci f icall yd is p u te s

3


19/328

4T h e OrthodoxC o r r u p ti o no f Scr ip tureover Christology , prompte d Christia n scribes to alte r thewordso f Scriptureinordert o make them more serviceabl e for the polemical task. Scribes mod-ifiedthei r manuscript stomak e them more patently"orthodox"andless sus-cept ibleto"abuse "by theopponentsoforthodoxy .Icannotbegint odetai lth eevidenceo fthi s kindo fscribal activity with-out firstestablishingitssocio-historicalcontext.Thepresent chapte r inaugu-rates th e study by isolating the kinds of issues that were at stake in thetheo-logical controversie s o f th e secon d an d thir d centurie s and b y showing ho wthesecontroversieswere generally carried out i n the literary realm. Once thispolemicalm i lie ui sestablished,I cantur ni n thechapter stha tfollo wto th eimportant,i fwidel y neglected,aspec to fthes e struggle stha tserve sa s th eo b j e c to f m yprimary concern, th e"orthodo xcorruptio no fScripture. "

OrthodoxyandHeresy:TheClassical ViewFo rman y student so flat e antiquity , th edisparat ef orm so fearl y Christia nbeliefsugges ta paradigmf o runderstandin gth edevelopmen to f th ereligion .Duringits first two an d a h a l fcenturies , Christianit y comprisedanumberofcompeting theologies , o r better , a number of competing Christian groups ad -vocating a variet y o f theologies . Ther e wa s a s ye t n o establishe d"ortho -doxy,"tha t is , no basi c theological syste m acknowledged b y them a j o rit yo fchurch leader san dlaity .D i f f e r e n tloca l churche s supportedd if f e re n tunder -standingso f th ereligion , whiled i f fe ren tunderstanding so f th ereligio n werepresent eve n withi n th esam e loca l church . Evidencef o rthi s vie wh a sbee nsteadilymountin g throughou tth epresen t century :w ekno wo f th ewide -spread diversit yo fearl y Christianityf ro mbot h primar yan dsecondar yac -counts,and ca nsometimes pinpoint thi s diversity with considerable accuracy.

Thisi s no t t osay , however ,tha thistorian so fearl y Christianit y havea lwaysshare d thi s perspective . T o th e contrary , i t represent s a distinctiv eshif ti nthinking , e ff e c t e donl yi nr e l at iv e l yrecen t times . Prio r t o th ebegin -ningo fthi s century ,v i rt u a ll yal linvestigator s wer e held , mor eo rles s con -sciously,under th eswayo f th ehistorieso fear lyChristianity produced duringth eperio di tse lf .Particularl y inf luentia lw a s th eEcclesiastical Historyo f E u -sebius,th efourth-century bishopo fCaesareaan dso-calle d "fathero fchurchhistory,"whosewor kse t th eton efo r Christia n historiograph y for age s t ocome.1E u s e b i u shad a providenta l viewofhistory tha t allowe dhi m t opain tarather sanguin e pictur eo fChristianity' s f i rs tthree hundre d years ,a pictur esomewhat remarkabl e inviewo f t h eexternal hardshipsandinternal tensionsthatthe religion actually endured. But Eusebius could detect the hand of Godb e h i n dth e scene s a te ve r ystage , directin g the church' s missio n an d destiny .Believerscontrolle dan dsustaine db yGod' sspiri tf ac e dpersecutio n wit hboldness, so that the church grew despite opposition, an d"heresy "was quicklyandef fec t ivel yovercom eb y th eorigina lan dapostoli c teachin go f th echurch' svastmajority , a teachin gtha twa s b yd e f i ni ti o n"orthodox "(i nthati t wa s"right").2


20/328

T h e T e x t o f S c r i p t u r e in a n A g e o f D i ss e n t 5E u s ebiu s , o f co u rse , d i d no t lo a d th i s t e r m w i t h th e t ech nica l ba gg ag e o falat e r age . W rit in g be fo r eth eC ou nc i lo fN ic e ai n 32 5C.E .inw hic hth eArianc ontro ve rs y f o u n da n in it ia l r eso lu tio n ,an dw el li na dvanc eo f th e

Counci lo fC h alc e d o n (4 5 1C.E.) ,b es t k n ow nf o r it sh i gh l y nu a nced ,i fpa r a -doxical, sta temen to fChristology,3E usebiu s meant somethin g rela t ivel y bas icby"orthodox"Chris t iani ty :i t i st h a t k in do fbelie fp re ac h e db y th eapo st le sa nd t h e i r f o llow er s f ro m t h e b e gin nin g , a sopposedt om ajo rd e via tio n s th a tca m e su bs eq u en tt o it ,devia tion sthatden y suc h indispensibl e Christ ian doc -t rin es a s t h e go odn es s o f th e c re at io n , o r t h e de it y o f C h rist , o r t h e u n it y oftheGodhead. Heresies,t h en , ar e seco nda r y incu r s io n s in t o t h e c o m m u ni t y oftrue believers,inspired asi s al levi lfo r Eusebius 4 b y th edevi land hi swickeddemons,w h om o v ew illf u lp erso n s t o c orru p t th e f ait h p ro c laim e db y th eapostleso fJesus (e.g. ,Hist.Eccl.II, 14,1-3 ; III ,26-27;IV, 7,1-3) .E u s ebiu s 's t r eat m en t o f S im o nMagus ,p o r t ra ye d a s t h e f irs t h e re t i c a n dfa thero ft h e m a ll , exem pl if ie sh isviews . Q uot in g th eapologis tan d heresiol -ogist Jus t in , E useb iu s c laims tha t th e demo nical ly inspired Simo n appeare d int h e co u rs e o f t h e a po st oli c m i ssio n , p e r f o rm i n g b la c k m a gi c a n d m isle ad in go th ers t o b elie v etha th e w a sh im se l fdiv in e . N o t on l y d i d Sim o n ad vo c at eb l as p h e m o u s an df als edo c t rines ,h ea ls o liv e da pr o f li ga t el ife ,o p e nl y c on -s ort ing w i t h a pu b l i c p r o st it u t e nam e d H ele n an d eng ag in g i n secre t an dv il eri tuals.Thosew h o m h e m is le d accep te d h i s h ere t ica l tea ch ing s an d s im i la rlyindulgedi n s ca nda lo u s pra c tices : "Fo r w h a t eve r co u ld b e i m a g ined m o re d is -gust ing t ha n th e f ou le s t c rim e k n ow n h a s b ee n o utstrip pe d b y th e u t t erl yrevolt ingheresyo f t h es e m en ,w hom a k e sp o r to fw r e tc h e d w o m e n , b u r d e n e dindeed w i t h v ice so fever ykind"(His t . Ecc l .I I , 13 , 8). 5Accordingt oE u se b iu s ,G o draise du p th eA p ost l e Pe te rt ore f ut e th i signominious heret ic i nJ u d ea ,

ext inguishingth ef lam e so f th eE vi lO n eb ef or eth e y c ou l d sp re ad .. . .Consequent ly nei the r Simon n o r a n y o f h i scontemp oraries manage dt of or mano r ga niz e d b o d yi nt h os e a p os to li c d ay s , fo re v e r y at t em p tw a sd e fe at e dando v e rp o w e re db y th el ig h to f th e t ru t han d b y th ed ivin e W ord Himsel fw ho h a d s o rec en t l y s h o n ef ro mG o d o nh u m an s ,a c tiv e i n th ew o rl dan di m m a n e n ti n H i s o w napost le s( H is t. E c c l.II , 14 ,2 3 ) .

Havingb ee n d ef e at e di nJ u de a , S im o nf le d t oRo me , w h er eh eachieve dn olit tle su cces s a w a y f ro ma na po st o li cp r es en c e u n ti lP e te r a ga i n a p pe are dandonc ean d fo r al ld isp ense d w i t h t hi s he n c h m a no fS at a n t h ro u g ha ra -diantan d po w er f u l p r o c lam a t io no f t r u t h( H is t. E c c l.II, 14,5-6) .There i sm o r e vit rio l t h a n su b st an c ei nE u s eb iu s' s tr e at m e n to fS im o n .T h eac c o u n t n o ne th e le s sattest sa s ch em at i c u nder s t andi n go f th en at u r eo fCh ris tia n h eresy , an d i t i s th i s ba si c co ncep t u a lizat io ntha tp ro ve d s oinf lu -entialf o r t h et radi t iona l assessmen to f th edevelo pm en to fChris t ia n doct rine .T he"classical "vie w o forthodox ya n d he re s y f o rm a liz e s t hi s b asi c u n d e r -standing.6Fo rt hi s view ,"orthodoxy "( lit e ra ll ym e anin g"righ to p inio n" )representsth eteachings advoca te db yJesusa n d hi sapos tles , sprea d through -o u t t h e w o rl d b y Ch rist ia n s o f th e firs t g en e ra tio n , a n d at te st e d b y t h e v a s t


21/328

6T h e Orthodox C o r r u p t io n o f S c r i p t u r emajori tyo f b elie ve r s i n al lperiods.7T hos e w h o clai m t o b e Ch rist ia n b u tw h o d en y an y p o in t o f th i s te a c h in g , o r w h o m o dif yi t i n a n y significantw ay ,represent"heresy "( l it e ra ll ym e a nin g"choice") ,b ec au s e th e y h av ew i llf u ll ychosent om isr ep r e se n to rd e n yth e t r u t h . H ere sy , t h en ,i sa lway s sec o n dar yto th e tru t h an d de rive df ro m i t b y a k in d o f c o rru p tio n o r p erve rsio n . F o rC h r is t ian p o le m ic is ts , suc h p e rv e rs io n s a r e th e m in o ri t y o p in io n o f d e p rav e dind iv id ua l s; f o r sc h o l ar s o f t h e p e rio d le s s in te re st e d i n th e se e v a l ua t iv e c a te -g orie s, b u t no n et h ele s s u n d e r th e in f lu e n c eo f t h e i r sc h e m at i c u n d e rp in nin gs ,th e r e su l t an t h e re sie sar e a tle as t d e ri va t iv ein n at u re .I ne it h e r c ase , he re s yre p re se nt s a c o n t a m in at io n o f t h e o r ig in a l te a c h in g s o f C h ris tia nit y b y id e a sd r awn f ro m t h e o utside , e it he r f ro mJ e w is h c irc le s o r f ro mt h e te ac h ing s o fp ag an p h ilo so p h e rs .

A l th o ug h Euse b iu swa scer tainl y responsibl efo rpopu lar iz in g these views ,h e b y n o m e an s in ve nt e d th e m .T o th ec o n tra ry ,h e se l f- consciousl y p lace dhimselfw i th i na strea mo f t radi t io ntha tr u n s b ac k t hro u g ha serie so fearl ierwr i ters tha th e an d h i sorthodox associate s emb race da s the iro w nt h e o lo g ic a lfo reb e ars , wr i te r s suc h a s O rig en , H ip p o ly t us , Te r t u l lian , I re n ae us ,an dJus-tin.8 In te re st in gly , t h e b asi c u nd e rs ta nd in g o f o rt h od o x y a n d h e re s y fo un dam o n gthesep r o g en it o r so fo r t h o do x yc a n b e t rac e dal l t h e w a yb ac kt o th efirstc e n t ur y ,t o th eo ld es t sur v iv in g ac c o unto fC hr is t iani ty ' se a r l yyears ,th eN ew T e st am e n t b oo ko fActs.

9T o b esure , A ct si sc o nc erne d les s w it hth er el at io n sh i po f t he o lo g ic a ld iv e rg e nc e s wi t h i n e ar l y C h rist ian it y t h a n wit h t h e disse m in a tio n o f th er e li -

gionit se lf .Th e te r m"orthodoxy "doe sno toc cu r h ere ,an d"heresy "lac k sanyp e j o ra t iv e se nse , m e a nin g sim p l y"sect."10B u tun d e r g ir d in g A c t s 'nar-rativear e no tio n s t h a t p ro ve d p a rt ic u l ar l y a m e n ab l et o th e c lassic a l un d e r -s ta n di ng o f o rt h o do x y a n d h ere sy . H e r e t h e t ru ef a it hi s b ase d o n th e e ye w it -ness account so f th eapostles ,w h oe xe c u t e t h ei r m issio nt osp re a d t h i sf ait hu n d e rth eg u id an c eo f th eH o l y Sp irit .T h ea p os to li c c h u rc h e s s ta n di ncom-p le te h a rm o n y w it h o n e an o th e r e ve n la te c o m er s su c ha sP au lagre e w it hJesus ' or igina l fo l lower so ne ve r y i m p o r ta n t p o in to f doctr inean dp r ac t ic e .I tis t ru e th a t e ve n h e r e diff icul t ie saris e w i t h i n th e C h ri st ia n c o m m u n it ie s . B u tthese deriv e f ro m th egree dan da varic eo f t h e i r i nd iv id u a l m e m b e r s(5:1 11),o rf ro mth e t h ir s tfo rp ow e ro ft ho s ew h oc om et o in f i lt ra t e t h ei r m id s t(8 :4 25 ) .T h ev as t m aj o ri t yo fc o n v e rt s r e m ai n t r uet o th eap o st o li c m e ssage ,and t he o lo g ic a l issue sar ereadi l y resolve db y a nap p ea lt o ap osto li c au t h o r -ity , wh ic h i n every case even a ft e rse rio u s de b at e an dre f lec t ion reveal s th emost remarkabl eo f al lunit ie s(15:1-29). Disunitiesc a n b eat t ribute dt o" fa ls eteachings," tha tis , t od e v ia tio n s f ro mth et he olo gic a l v ie w so f J esus 'ow napostles.S u c h d ev ia tio n sar e th ep e rv e rs e do in g so fd e ge ne ra t e in d iv id ua l s ,wolvesw h oin f il t ra t eth ef lo c ko fshe e pt o d og re a t dam ag e ,b u t w h oc ann ot ,ul t imate ly ,o ve rc o m ea c h u rc hu nif ie d b eh in dth eo rigin a l ap o st o li c t e ac h in g-(10:28-31).Thisi s th eap os to li c C h r ist ian i t yt ow h ic h l at e r age s c ou l d ap p e al . S m al lwo n d e r , g iv e n t h i s c an on ic a l p re c e de nt , t h a tth ev ie w s e m b r ac e db yE u s eb iu sa nd h i sp e er s sh o u l d re ce iv e su c ha w i d e h e arin g , sh o u l d in de e d b ec o m eth e


22/328

T h e T e x t o f S c r i p t u r e in a n A g e o f D i ss e n t 7normativewa y o funderstandin gth edevelopmen to fChris tia n theolog ydow nto them o d e r nage.11

TheChallenge:Walter Baue rT h e c lass ica l und ers tandin go f th erelat ionshi po forthodoxyan dh e re s ym e tadevastat in g challenge in1934w i t h th e pu b l ica t i o n o f W a lt e r Bau er ' sRecht-gldubigkeitu n d K etze r ei i m a lte s te n Christentum,12p o ssib l y th e m o s ts ig nif -i cantbooko ne a rl yCh r is t ia n it y w r it t e n i n m o der n t im es . Ba u e r a rg u e d t h a tth ee a rl y Ch rist ia n c h u r c h i n fac tdi d no tc o m p ris ea single or thodox y f ro mw h i c hem erge da v arie t yo fc o m p e t in g h e re t ic a l m in o rit ie s . In st e ad ,earl yChrist ianitye m b o die da nu m b e ro fd iverg en t f o rm s ,n o on e o fw h ic h re pre -sented th ec le a ran dp o w e r f u l m aj o rit yo fbe liever s againstal lothers.Inso m ere gio ns, w h a t w a s la te r t o b e te rm e d"heresy "w a s i nf ac tt h e o rig in a l a n donly fo r mo fChrist iani ty .I notherr eg io ns , view s la te r deem e d h er e tica lc o -e xiste d w it h vie w s th a t w o u l d c om e t o b e e mb rac e d b y th e c h u rc h a s a w h o le ,with m o s t b elie v er sno td ra w in g h ar dan df as tlin e so fd e m a rc a t io n b e tw e e nt he c o m pe tin g vie w s . T o t h i sextent,"orthodoxy, "i n th e sens e o f a u n if ie dg ro u p ad v o c at in ga na p ost oli c d o c trin e ac c ep te db y th em a jo rit yo fC h ris -t ia ns e v ery w h e re , d i d no t e xis t i n t h e se co n d an d t h ir d c e n tu rie s . N o r w a s"heresy"secondari l y der ive df ro ma n o rig in a l t ea c hin g t hro u g h a nin fu sio nofJ ew is h ide a so rp a ga n p h ilo so p hy .B elie f s t ha t w ere ,a t la te r t im e s ,em -braceda sorthodoxyan d c o nd em n e da sheresy werei n f ac tc o m p e t in g in t e r -pre ta t ionso fC hrist ianity ,o n e o fw h i c h even t u a l ly ( bu tnotini t ial ly ) acqui redd o m i na t io n b e c a u s eo fs ingula r h istor ica lan dso c ia l f orc e s . O n l y w h e no n esocial grou p h a de x ert e dit se l fs u f f ic ient l yove rth ere s to f Chris tendomd i d a"majority"o pin io n e m erge ; o nl y th e ndi d th e"righ t b e l ie f " re p re se n t th eview o f th eC h r is tia n c h u rc ha t large .A s c a n b esee nb yt h i s th u m b n a i l sk etc h ,o n e o f th ego al s im p l ic i ti nBauer 's recons truc t io no fo rt h od o x yan dhe re s yw a s th ed e c o nst ru c t io no fth et erm so f th edebate.13H i sdiscussio n c lear l y assumes ,an d fo rm os t su b -se qu e nt sc h olars , c le arl y de mo nstrate s , th a t ort ho do x y an d he re s y c a n n olongerb e t ak e n t o m e a n eit he r w h a t th e i r e ty mo lo gie s su gge s t o r w h a t th e yt radit ionallyh a v e im p lie d . B au e r do e s n o t a ssu m e t h a t o rt h od o x yrefer st o"rightb e l ie f s " an d h e re s y t o" w ill fu lm is be lie f s. " H e use s t h e t e rm s descr ip -tivelyt ore fe rt o so c ia l g ro u p s , n am e l y , t h e p a r t ytha t eventually es tablisheddo m i na nce o ve r th eres to fCh r is t endo m ( o rt h o do xy )an d th ei ndi v idu a l sandgroupstha texpresse d a l terna t iv e theologica lv ie w s(heresies) . In doing so , heimpliesn ov a lu ej u d g m e nt ( o ne gr o u p w a s ri gh t , t h e o t h er s w er e w r o ng) , an dd oe s n o t e m b r ac e th e t ra d it io n a l n o tio ntha to n e o f th e gro u p s ( o rt h o do x y )could c la im his torica l pr ior it y an d num erica l super iori ty ove r th eothers.14T o es tabl is hh i sc la ims , Bauer chose cer tai n geographica l region so fear lyChris tendom fo rw hic hw eh a v e so m ee v ide nc e pa r ti c u la rl yE d e ssa , E g yp t ,A nt io ch , A si aMinor,M ac e do nia , a n dR o m e su b je c te dt h e an c ie n t so urc e sfort h e Ch r i st i an it y o f t h es e regio ns t o t h e c lo ses t s c r u t iny , and dem o nst ra t e dt h at c on tra r y t o th ereportso f Eusebius , the earlies t and/o r predominan tform s


23/328

8T h e OrthodoxC o r r u p t io n o f S c r i p t u r eofChris t ianit yi nm os to fthesearea s wer e here t ica l ( i.e . , form s sub sequent lyco ndem nedb y th ev ic t o r io u s pa r t y) .T o b esure , Christ ian s advoca t in g view slate r em brac e d b y f o urt h -c en t u r y o rth o do x y c ou l d b e f o u n dsc attere dt h r o u g h o u t th es e regio ns ,b u t i nm o s t case s t h e y represen te da m i no r it yp o -sition.B a u e r re c ognize d, o f co urse , th a t mo s t o f th e w r it in g s su rv iv in g t h econfl ic ta tte s t th i s late r u nd e rst an din g . B u t th i s i s no t a t al l du e t o th efac t(nolo nge r see na s a fac t )tha t th e yar eb r oa dl y re p re se n ta tiv eo fn asc en tChris t ian opinion .I t i sr at h e rdu e t o th e"accident "o f thei r preserva t ion .I tist h e w in n e r s w h o w r it e th e h is to ry : la te r p r o p o ne n t s o forthodoxy( i.e . , th evic tors)preserve d th ew r it ing so f thei r theologica l forebear san d insis te d tha tt h ey r epr esen t e d th eo pin io no f th e m ajo rit yo fC h r is tia n s f ro map ostoli ctimes.

Ho w, t ho u gh , d i d th i s on ef or mo fC h r i st ia n it y t h ef or mt ha t c am e t oinf luenceal lm a jo r b ran c he so fC hrist en do m do w n t o th ep re se n t d ay , th ef o r mr e sp o n sib l ef o r th eA p o st le s 'an dN ic en e c re eds , fo rR o m a n C ath oli -c is m , E a st e r nOrthodoxy ,an dP r o t e st an t is m a tt a i na le ve lo fd o m in an c e ?ForBau e r t hi sw a s th ek in do fChristianit yf o u n d predominant l yi n t h ec h u rc hofR o m e , a c h u r c h t h a t h a d al w ay s u se d it s s u p erio r a d m in is t ra t iv e pro w e s sa nd it s v as t m at e ria l re so u rc e s t o in flu e nc eo th e r C h r is tia n c o m m u n it ie s . 1 5A m o ng o th e r th ings , th e R om a n c h urc h urge d a h ie rarc h ic a l st ru c t ur e o no t h erc h u rc h es th e m o n a rc h i a l e p isc o p a te w h ic h ,g iv e nt h e righ t b ish op ,co u ld pers u a de t h e m a j o ri t y o f ch u r ch m em ber s t oadoptcer ta in perspect ives .A ndt o som e degre e th e Ro ma nin flu e nc ew a s p u re l y e c ono mic : t h e m a nu -missiono fs lave san d th e p u rc h a s eo fp r is o ne r s b ro u g h t la rg e n u m b e r sint ot h e ir fo ld , w h i leth ej u d ic i o u su se o fg if t san d alm seffec teda generall y sym-pa t h e t i c h ea ri n go fthei r views .Specific de t ail so fB a u er ' s dem o ns t ra t io n w er e i m m edi at e l y seena sp ro b -l e m ati c b y a n um b e ro f h i s reviewers ,an dr ec e n t tim e s h av e see n de t ra c to r sc o me in c re asin gl y t o th efore . 16M an y o f th e argu m ent s h av e foc use d o nm e th o do lo gy : B a u e r h a s be e n c harg ed , f o rgoo d re aso n , w it h at ta c k in g o r -thodoxsource s wi t h inquisi tor ia l zeal and wi t h explo it in g the argum en tf ro msilence.17I n te rm so f th es u bs t an t iv e iss u es , vir tual lyal l o f th ere gio n s t h a tB a u e re x a m in e d h a v e b ee n su b j e c t e d to f u rt h e rscru t iny , rarely t o th ea d va n -tageo f h i sspecific conclus ions .T h er e gn an tv ie wno w i s t h a t Ba u e r pr o ba bl yoverest imated th ei nf lu e nc eo f th e R om a nchurch18an du n d e re st im a te d th ee xt en t o f ort h od o x y t h ro u g h o u t t h eMediterranean.19I t w o u l d b e a m i st ak e ,however , t ot hin k th a t th er e p u d ia t io no fB a u e r' sspecif i c f in d in g s h a sf ree dsc h o la rs t o r e t u r n t o t h e c lassic a l f o r m u l at io n o f t h e p r ob le m i nh e rit e d f ro mtheearlyorthodoxw riter s themselves . Qui tet o thecontrary,th eo p i n iocom-munist h a t ha s e m erge d i s t h a t de sp it e th e c le a r sh o rt c om in g s o f hi s s tu d y ,Bauer 's in tu i t ion s were r igh t i nn u c e :i fanyth ing, early Ch rist iani tyw ase ve nlesst id y a n d m o r ediversifie d t h a n h e rea lized ,2 0a n d c o n t ra r y t o h i s o p in io n ,w e d o no t ne e d t o w ai t f o r th e sec on d c e nt ur y t o b egi n pa in tin g t hi s p ic -ture.21W h a t la te r c am e t o b e k n o w n a s o rt ho do x y w a ss im p l yo n ea m o n g an u m b e ro fc o m p e t in g in t e rp r e ta tio n so fC h r is t ia n it yi n th ee arl y p erio d .I twas nei the r a self -eviden t in terpre ta t ion no r a n origina l aposto li c view . 2 2In -


24/328

T h e T e x t o f S c r i p t u r e in an A ge o f D i ss e n t 9deed, a s f a r ba c k a s N e w T es t am en t tim es , Ch ris tia n it y w a s rem a r ka b l y va r-ie di n it s t he olo gic a l e xp re ssio ns , w it h th e div ersit y o f th e Ne w T e st am e n tbeco m ing m a ni f es tye tm o r e c le arl yi n t h ed i ver si t yo f t h ese co n dan d t hir dcenturies,

23w h e n co mp etin g gro up s e mb rac e da w id e ran g eo fc o nf lic t i n gtheologies,a n d f ixe dl in e so fd e m a rc a t io n w e r ei nsca rc e s u pp ly .

TheRegnantOpinio Communis OrthodoxyandHeresyinEarlyChristianityIh av en o t ye tprovide dan yevidenc efor th eo p i n i o c o m m u n is t h a tha semerge dinB au e r' s w ak e . G iv e n th ep u rp o s eo f th ep re se n t st ud y t o b u il do nth i sc o nse nsu s ra t h e r t h a n t o e st ab lis h it i tw il lb e en ou g h sim p l y t o c it e ev i-dencethath a s pro ve d g enera ll y co nvi nc ing and t h a t re la te s i n so m e m ea s u r et o m y o w n co ncerns , na m ely , t h e w a y s t h es e ea rly co n t r o ver sie sa ffec te dth esc rib e s w h o t ra n sm i tt e d th e t ex t o f th e N e w T e s ta m en t .T heex ist enc eo fw ildl y diverse expressionso fChris t iani t yi sa bu nda nt lyattested i n o u rea rl y so u rces , m a n yo fw h i c h b e m o a n th e fac ta s asorry sta t eofaff airs. 2 4T hu s , th eA po st le P a u l ,o u rearl ies t Christ ian au th or ,d ef e nd sh i sunders tandingo f th efait ha ga in s t va rio u s"aberrations, "fo re xam p le ,Ju -daizingopponent si nG ala ti aan d th eenthusiast so fCorinth . W arning s agains t"heterodox"v ie w s p e rm e at e th e page s o f th e b oo k s late r c an on iz e d a s th eNew Tes tament ,bot hfro mc irc le s tha t wer e associate d wit hP aul, 25an d th os ethatw er enot.26S oto o ,th ew r it ing so f th eso -c alle d " c h u rc h f a th e rs " (i.e . ,th ee a rl y w rit e r s la te r e m b ra c e db yorthodoxa u th o r so f th e f ou rt hc e nt ur yand l at e r )ar edo m i nat e db yanti -he ret ica l conc erns, f ro m th eoc cas iona l epis -tleso f Ig na tiu s i n t h e se co n d c e nt u ry , w h o o n h i s w a y t o m ar ty rd o m w a rn sth e c hu rc he so fA si a M in o r ag ain s t J u da iz in gan ddoc eti c k in d so fC h ris -tians,27 t h r o u g ha r an g eo fsuc h heresiologist sa sJus t in, I renaeus , Ter tu ll ian ,a nd H ip p o ly tu s , w h o d ev ot e p ro d ig io u s a m o u n t s o f e ne rg y t o r e fu t in gi nd i -vidualsan d gro u p s t h a t p ro p o u n d u n p ala ta b l e ide as . T h e p o in t i s n o t th a tthesef a m i li a ra u t h o r s ev idence th ep r e d o m in a nc eo f th eorthodoxv ie w .I t isra th e r t h a t th e y de m o nst ra t e th eex ist enc eo friv a lgro u p sa te ve r y tu r n , i nvirtuallyever y regio no fChristendo mo fw h ic h th ey ,an d we ,hav e knowledge .T h e s pec t a cu la r d isco verie s o f h ere t ica l w r i t ing s du r i ng th e pres en t cen -t u r yh a v e c o n fir m e dth eexis tenc eo fsu c h gro u p san d c lar if ie dsom eo f t he i rt h eolo g ica l ch a ra c te rist ics . O n e w o u l d na t u r a l l y no t expec t th e v ic t o r s o f t h estru ggle t o re p ro du c e th e lit era tu r e o f th e i r o p p on en ts . A n d in de e d th e y b yandlar g edi dn o t , e xc ep t i ne xc e rp t s t h a t t h e y q uo t e d sim p l yfo r pu r po se so fre fu ta t ion.T h i s m e an s th a t p rio r t o su c h f o r t u it o u s fin din gs as t h e l ibrar yo fG n o st ic w r it in g s u n c o ve re d ne a r N a g H a m m a di , E g yp t , i n 1945 , o u r u n d e r -s tandingo fheterodoxC hris t ianit yw a snecessaril yone-sided.28B u tw i t h t h i sdiscovery w e no w hav e f irs than d informat io n abou t th ebelief sa nd , t o a lesse rextent,t h e p ra c tic e s o f o n e o r m o r e v a r ia n t f o r m s o f C h r is tia n it y .2 9No t th eleasti nt e res tin g t h i ng a bo u t t h e N a g H a m m a d i t ra c t a t e s i s t h a t so m e o f t h emengage i npolemic s agains t here t i ca l tendencieso fo t h er gro u ps , inc lu di n g thegrouptha t e v e n t u a ll y a c q u ir e d d o m in a nc e t h a tis , th e"orthodox "Ch r is -


25/328

10 T h eOrthodoxC o r ru p tio n o f S cr ip tu r etiansthemselves.30T h u s ,th ec o mm o n n ot io n th a t he re s yw a sa lw a y so n th erun, a lway s assuming adefensiv eposture,h a s n o w h a d t o b e re vise d. G r o u p sla te r la be le d h ere tic a l sa w t h em se lv e s a sorthodo x( h o ld in g t h e"righ tb e -liefs")a n d so m et im e s at tac k e d gro u p s t h a t he l d v ie w s t he y th e m se lv e s c o n-sideredaberrant.31It m a y ap p ea r so m ew h a t in c on gru o u s t h a t a w o rl d o f su c h in te ns e p o -lemic p r od u c e dfe wl ine so f dem a rca t io n t od if feren t ia t e th eposit ion so f th ev ario u s g ro u p s . T h i s i s n on et he le s s a no t he rc le arl yat te st e d fe at ur eo f th eper io d . T h i si s not t o sa yt h a t b a tt l e lin e s w e r en e v e r d r aw n . P o le m ic a l c o n -f ro n ta tio n s b y t h e i r v er y na t u r e re q u ir e so m e e va lu a tio no f th ed if fe re nc e sbe t w een o nese l f an done' sopponents .I np a rt ic u l a r ,s pe cif i c d if f ere nc e so fo p in io n e me rge d i n t h e are a o fChristology ,t h e are a o f ou r m o s t im m e d ia t ec o nc e rn . A t th e sa m e tim e , t h e so urc e s c le arl y sh o w t h a t p rio r t o t h e e st ab -l is h m ent o f a r ig i dorthodoxy ,w it h it s h ig h l y n u an c e d u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th efa i th ,t he r ew a s a b ro a dtrac to f unnaviga ted ter r i tory,o r t osw i tc hth em e t -aphor,a m u r k y p e nu m b r a b etw ee n th eo lo gic a l p ositio n s t h a t t o u s m igh tap p e ar qu it edisparate. 32I n som e me asu re , th e ab se nc e o f c le a r b o u nd ar ylinese x p lain s Ire nae u s' s f am o u s la me n t th a t G no sti c C h rist ia n s p ro ve d s odif f icul tt ouproo t f ro mt h e c h u r c h b ec a us e t he y w er e f a rf ro me as y t o lo c at eandd i ff e re n tia t e f ro ms im pl e be lievers . 3 3T o a larg e degree , o f c ou rse , th eproblemo fde tec t io n resu l te d f ro ma pecu l ia r i tyo fG nos t i c Chris t ians :a s w eshallsee , the yh a d n oq u alm s ab o u t p ro fe ssin gb e lie f se sp ou se db yothe rChris t ians, wh i l e ass ignin gt o th e ma d ee pe r m e an in g th at ,t o th e li te ra ll ym i nd e d Ir en ae u s a n d h i s c o n st it u e nc y , p ro v e d t an t a m o u n t t o d e n y in g t h e m .B uto na n o th e r le ve lth eG no st ic s co u l dno tr ea dil yb ede tec t ed beca u s e m a nyoft h e th in g s t h e y b elie ve d ha d n o t ye t b e e n pro no u nc e d a s ab e r ra n t b y an ygenerallyrecognize d auth ority. Irenaeu s was,i n asense, breakingnewground.34T h e ge ne ra l ab se nc e o f th e olo gic a l p re c isio n i n th e p erio d c a n h e l p e x -plainw h y w rit e r s w h o w er e la te r e m b ra c e d a s f o re ru n n e r s o forthodoxyes -p o use d v ie w stha t loo k r e m ar k ab l y h e re t ic a l : b o t h C le m en t o f A l e xa nd ri aa nd O rig en , fo r exam ple , ackno w ledge d t h a t Jesu s ' bo d y cou l d readil y ch ang eappearance a tw ill adecidedl y docet i cn o tio n w it hC l e m e n t c l aim i n gthatJ esu s in ge st e d f oo d no t f o r n o u r is h m e n t b u ts im p l yt o co nvinc e h i s f o llow er sthath e a c t u a ll y h a d a body.35S uc h v ie w s w e red i ff i c u l tt o c o nst ru e a s e it he rorthodoxo r h e re t ic a l i n t h e la t e se co n d c e nt u ry , a s t h e re qu isit e b o u n da r ylinesh a d no t i n e ve r y c as e be e n c le arl y dra w n . W h en , a t a lat e r t im e , t he yw e r e d ra w n , eve n su c h "c ham pio n s o forthodoxy "a s T e rt u llia n an d , e sp e -cially,O rig en ,fel lu nde r th es tr ic t u re so f th ep art y th e yh a dh elp e d estab -lish.36T h em o r e ne b u l ou s c o n te x to ft h e i ro w n da yals o expla in sw h yChris -t ianso fr a dica l l yd i f feren tt heo lo gica l pers u as io n s co u l db eact ivel y involvedin th elif ean dw o rsh i po f th esam e c hu rc h .I h a v e a lre a d y m e nt io n e d Ire n -aeus' s genera l com plaint s abou tth eGnos t i c Ch ris t ians .W e ca nals o speako fspecific in st an c es : V a le n t in u s , P t ole m y ,an dJ u s ti n w e r e ap p are nt l yal l ac -cepted a sf a it hf u lm em ber so f th eco ng reg at io ni nR om e ,a t ap p r o x im a t e l ythesam etime.37N o w h er ear e th eb lu rre dline ss epa ra tin g"acceptable "an d"aberrant "


26/328

T h e T e x t o fScr ip ture i n a n A g e o fD is s en t 1 1beliefsmor e eviden t than i n the"popular"Christian literatur e of the secon dand thir d centuries , literature ,tha tis ,thatwas writte n fo r an d rea d b y gen-eralaudience s no t overl y concerne d wit h theologica l niceties . Thi s i s espe -ciallytrueo f th eapocryphal Acts, f ic t ion a laccount so f th eactivitie so fapos -tles such as Peter,John,and Thomas. Thes e worksh av ealways provedpuzzlingforhistorian s o fdoctrine ,becaus e the y represen t theologica l view s tha t a ttimes appea rorthodo xan d a ttime s heretical.38Thi si s duebot ht othei rnature("Romances "for popular consumption ) and t o the time of their writ-ing, whe n suc h distinction s canno t hav e been clearly made.But th eblurredl inesc a nals ob eseeni nostensibly polemical literature, tha ti s , indocumentsthat purportedly work t oresolvetheological issues. This i s why christologicalaf f i rm at ion smad eb ysecond-an dthird-century Christians interested i ntheo-logical"correctness"canappears oprimitiveby f o u r t h -o r fifth-centurystan-dardso n th e on ehand,ye tseemt o b eheadedtowards orthodoxy ,wit hit sparadoxicala f f i rm a t i o n s ,o n theother. Ignatius evidently consideredhi screedsufficientlynuance d to disallow the conceivable aberrations:

Therei s onephysicianbothf le sh l yan dspiritualbegotten an d unbegotten ,comei n flesh ,God,indeath , tru elif e ,botho fMaryan d o fGod ,firstpassibleand the n impassible,Jesus Christ ,ourLor d( Ign .Eph.7 ,2).39

Orthodox theologian s o f a later age would have viewed such a creed as hope-lesslyvague.

TheologicalPolemic sand theProblemo fNomenclatureIhave already intimated that , contrar y t o wha t on e migh t expect, th e indis-t i n c tline s separating theologica l position s o f earl y Christians d o no t a t al lsuggest a gen eral l ytolerant attitud e amon g the disparate groups. T o b e sure,some group sma yhav e bee ntolerant ,an dman y Christian sn odoub t wer eindi f feren t .B u t th es u rv iv in gsource sar epermeate d wit h ju s t th eopposit edispositiona kin do fspirite d intoleranceo fcontrar y views , matched onl yb ytha t shown t o nonbelieving Jews and pagans.B e fo r ethe conversion of theRoman empero r t o Christianit y an d th e lega l proscriptio n o f heresy , evenb e f o r eth e earlies t council s tha t wer e called toa dj u dic a t eamon g theologica lclaimsan d t odepose heretic s f ro mposition so fauthority,a s fa rback i nf ac tasourearlies t sourcesgo, we findChristians castigating otherswh osimilar l yc la im t h enam eb u td if f e re n tl yinterpre t th ereligion . Furthermore,al l o f th eintolerant partie sappea rcertai n o f thei r ow n interpretations , whic h mean samong othe r thing stha te ve r ygrou p understoo dit se l ft o b eorthodo x (i.e. ,tosubscribeto the"rightbeliefs")andevery other groupto beheretical. Such


27/328

12 T h eOrthodoxC o r r u p ti o no fScr ip turea .stateo fa f f ai r sis , o fcourse , natural : whend operson so fstrong convictio never believe themselves to b e wrong?

Intellectual historian sma y b eabl et oadjudicat e someo f th ehistorica lclaimsof the various Christian groupstheir claims, that is, to stand in basiccontinuity wit h earlie r f orm so fChristia nbel ief . 4 0B u t b ythei rver ynatur ethehistorica l discipline sdo no tallo wfo rjudgment sin an yultimat e sens econcerningwh o wa s"right"an d who was"wrong."A s aresult , historian swhochoosedescriptive categories mus t remain contentt oassessthe survivingdatawithout subjectin g themt othei row nprescriptive norms. Amon gotherthings, thi s mean s that i t is not th e historian' s tas k to pr ivi leg ethe claims ofonegroup ove r another .

We aredriven, then,to theproblematic charactero f ourlabels,theprob-le mtha tconfronte dBauer. 41Ar eth e label s orthodoxy an d heres y appro -priatefo rdescribin g early Christian movements ?Mostscholar s recogniz e tha tthey canno t b e use d i n their traditiona l sense , namely , to designat e th e trueor origina l f ait ho n th e on e han d an d secondar y aberration s f ro mi t on th eother.A t th e sam et im e i nessentia l agreemen t wit h Baue r against som e ofh isdetractorsthelabelsc a nretai n thei ru sefu lnes sa sdescriptionso fsocia land politica l realities , quit e apar t f ro mthei r theologicalconnotations .Tha tisto say , they can serve as adequate descriptions of the group tha t eventuallyattaineda le ve lo fdominance withi nth eChristia n tradition,an d th emulti-plici tyo f groups tha t i t overcame. Fo r i t is a historica l f ac tthat , owin g t o avarietyo freasons,one group withi n early Christianity achieved socia l domi -nancean denforce dit sviewsonothe r group s tha tha dsupporte d divergen topinions. Looke d a t i nsociohistorica lterms , orthodox y an d heresy ar e con -cerned as much wit h struggle s over power a s with debates over ideas.Isi tappropriate , though ,t oappl y these label sto th ecompeting group sb e f o r eo n e o fthemh a dattaine da lev e lo fdominance?Is i tsensiblet ospea kofChristia northodox yan dheres y beforeth e f ou rt hcentury ?I n o n esense ,ofcourse,i t i snot.I f th eterm orthodoxy mean sth edominant f o r mo fChris-tianity, the n prio r t o it s domination , th e view s o f thi s grou p ar e scarcel yorthodox.B u teven beforeth edecisive eventso f t h e f o u rt hcentury there wereindividualChristian s who espouse d view sv e r ysimilar to those tha t came todominate, an d these writer s of the second an d thir d centuries were embracedbyth elate r champion so forthodoxya stheirowntheologica l forebears . Theseforebearscam e to b equotedas authoritative sources fo r deciding theologica lissues, an d wer e presented a s true heirs of the apostoli c tradition , as reliabletradents wh o passed alon g the doctrines o f thef a it hf ro mapostoli c to Nicen etimes.42C hie famon g thes e wer e suc hfigure s a sIgnatiu so fAntioch , Poly -carp,Justin , Irenaeus , Tertullian , Hippolytus , an d eve n Clement o f Alexan-driaan dOrigenth ewriters whose work s wer e preservedby thevictoriou spartyan d whocontinue todayt o in f lu e n c estudent s concernin g "the" natur eofChristianit ya ft e rth e NewTestamen t period .Giventhisstateo fa f fa i rs ,h o wshoul d these progenitorso f th edominan tpartyb elabeled?We may b esomewhat loat ht ocal l the m"orthodox, "be-cause, o n th e on e hand, thei r positions ha d no t ye t attained a lev e lo f domi -


28/328

T h e T e x t o fS c r i p t u r e i n a n A g e o fD i ss e n t 1 3nance , a nd ,o n th eo t h er , t h e y th em selve sh a d n o t ye tdefine dt h es e p o sit io n swi thth edegre eo fc la ri t ythatw a s la te r o b t a ined .Fo rt hi sreason,w em i gh tbest descr ib e the m a s"proto-orthodox,"o r sa yt h a t t h e y represen ta k in do f"incipientorthodoxy."

43W hile these labelsdoind ee d ap p e a r m o r e ac c u ra te ,t h ey ar ea f te ral l m e re l ylabels artif icial l yco nst ru c t e d sig nif ie rs a n dh av et h e dis adva nt a g e o f be i n g so m ew h a t cu m bers om e . I h a ve ch o se n t h ere f o r e t ousethe t er morthodo x in t e rc h a n ga b l y w it h t he s e m o r e a c c u ra t e d e sc rip t io n stod en ot eth ev ie w s t h a t la te r c a m et o a positiono fdo m ina nc ei nChris t ian-ity,and t oap p l yth et e r m h ere s yt opo s it io n s ado p te db yco m pet i ng part ies .I d o s o fu ll yc o g niz an to f th eca veat s req u i re db y o u rdiscussion : thes e labels

are notm ean tt ode no t e e it he rat h eo lo gica l a ppro ba t io no f thev a rio u spo-s it ions o r a h istor ica l assessmen t o f th e relat iv e nu me ric a l super ior ity o f thei radherents .Moreover,b ygrouping together thes eearly representat iveso fo r th o do xy ,t h ese pr o t o -o r th o do x Ch rist ia ns ,I d o no tm ea nt o sa yt h a t t he y at te s t e it he ram o n o l it h i c t he o lo g y am o n g th e mse lv e so r a perf ec t t h eo lo gica l co n t inu it ywi th th e representat ive so f f o u rt h - c e n t u r yorthodoxy.44I h a ve a l rea dy no t e dbothth ea m b ig u it yo f Ignatius 's theologya n d th e fin a l condemnat iono f O r -igen's.A t th esam e tim e , t he r ear ec e r ta i n p o in t so fc o n t in u it y am o n g th es et h inker s a nd c lea r lines o f deve lo pm en t t h a t m o v e t o w a r d t h e f o u r t h cen t u r y .

It i ss t rikin g tha t th elin e so f co n t i nu i t yar esomet ime s see n mor e c lear lyin w h a t th es e w rit er sre jec t th a ni nw h a t th e yaffirm. No w h er ei st h i s m o r econspicuous tha ni nthei r discussion so fChristology .A l l o f th eproto-orthodoxa u th o rs ap p e a r t o h av e e mb rac e d a p ara do x ic a l vie w o f C hrist , a s se en , f o rexam ple , i n t h e s o m ew h a t a m bi g u o u s st at em ent o f I gna tiu s a lr eadyquoted.45F o r t h e m a s a gro u p , C hris t w a s i n so m e sens e b o t h h u m a n an d div in e . B u tnei therth erela t ionshi po fCh ris t 'stw o"natures"n or h i srelat ionshipt o G o dw e re y e td e f in e dw i t h th e k in d o f n u an c e o n e f in d s i n th e lat e rchristologica lformulat ions.T h e p arad ox ic a l af f irm a tio n sw e r e n on et he le s s stro ngl y c h a r -acteristic o f th e s e f o re r u n ne r so forthodoxy ,an d i t w a spr ec is el y su c haf f ir -m a tio n s t h a t la te r c a m eto b ecrystallize din theo rt h od o x c re eds .Inn o s m al l m ea su r e , th e ch r is to lo g ica l pa ra do xe s w er e f o rce d u po n t hes esecond-an dt h ird -c e nt u r y th in ke r sb yt h e i r p o le m ic a l c o nte xts , i nw hic hCh r is tia ns w h o espo u se d o ppo sin g v iew s denied o n e o r a no th e r a spec t o f t h eChrist ian t ra dit io n th a t t h e y t he m se lv e s f ou n d im p o rt an t t oa ff ir m ,th e p er -plexing result s no twi ths tanding . Thi si s tos ay , t he s eproto-orthodo xC hris -t iansopposeda ny o n ewh oc la im e d t h a t Ch ris twas a man but no tG od ,an danyonew h oclaime dthath e w as G o d bu t no t am an ,an danyon ew h oc laime dtha th e wa s tw od ist in c t b ein gs ,on ed iv in ean d on e h um an .I ta pp e ar st oh a v e b e e nth eopp osit io nt ova r i an t c laim s t h a t co m pelle dth eorthodoxo f alaterg en era tio n t o esp ou s e su c hh ig h l yp a ra do xica lChristologie sa s e m e rg ein t h e i r c reeds .T h ere i s c on sid era bl e e vid en c e f o r th e existe nc e d u rin g th e se co n d an dt h ird c e n tu r ie s o f a v a rie t y o f C hrist ia n gro u p s th a t m ad e on e o r a no t he r o fthese"aberrant"claims ,a nd I willb ediscu ssing t he ir view sa tgrea te r lengt hinth ech a p ter s t h a t f o llo w , assessin gho wopposit io nt othe mle do rt ho do x


29/328

14T h eOrthodoxC o r r u p t io n o fS c r i p t u r escribes t o mo dif yt h e i rtext so fS c rip t u re . T ho s e gro u p sI w il ld e sc rib ea sa do p t io n ist s b e lie v e d t h a t C h ris tw a s a ful lf les h an db loo d hu m a n b eing ,w h o w a s ne it h e r p re - exis ten t no r ( f o r m o st a do p t io ni st s ) bo r n o f a v i r gi n . H ew asb o r nan d h el ive da s al lo t h e r h u m a n s .B u t a tso m e po i n to f h isexis tence ,usual lyh i s b ap tism , C h ris t w a s ad op te d b y G o d t o st an d i n a sp ec ia l re la -t ionship wi t h h imsel fa n d t o m e d ia t e h iswillo n ea rt h . O nl y i n t h i s sens e w a sh e th e "So n o f G od" : C hris t w a s no t div in e b y nat ure , b u t w a s h u m a n i neveryse ns e o f th e t e rm .Orthodo xCh r is t ia n s oppose d s u c h Ch r is to lo g ie s be-c au se , f o r th em , C hris t h a d t o b e mo r e t ha n a "m er e m an " fo r h i s w o r k o fsalvat iont o b ee f f e c t u a l .H e m us thimsel fh av e b ee ndivine.4 6

OtherCh r is t ia n s a gr ee d w it h th ea d o p t io n is t s t h a t Je su sw a s a f ul lf l e sha nd b lo o d h u m a n an d th a t so m e th in gsignificanth a d hap p en e d t o h i m a t h i sba p t i s m .Fo r th e m , h ow e ve r ,i t wa s no t t h a th e wa sa do p te dt o b eGod' sSon; ins tead ,a t h i sb ap t is m Je su s c a m et o b ein dw e l tb yG od .I t w a sthe ntha ta n e m is sa r y f ro m th ed iv in e re a lm ,o n e o f th ede it ie so f th eG odh ead ,na m ed"Christ, "en te r ed i nt o Jesu s t o em po w e r h i m f o r h i s m i ni st r y . A g a in,a t so m e tim e p rio r t o h i s c r u c if ix io n , t h e d iv in e Ch ris t d e p art e d fro mJe su st o re tu r n t o th e P lerom a , t h e div in e re alm , le av in g h i m t o su f f e rh i s fat ealone. Thi si s aCh r is to lo g y t h a tI wi l l labe l separa tionis t , becaus ei tposit sadivisionb et we e nth e m a nJe su san d th e d iv in e Ch ris t .A s w ew il lsee ,i t i s aview t h a t w a s p r e v al e n t am o n g se c o nd -c e n tu r y G n o st ic s , o n e t h a t t h e o rt h o -d ox fo u n d ob je c t io n ab l e o n a n u m b e r o f grounds.47O th er Ch rist ian s , bo t h a m on gth eG n ost ic san do u tsid eo f th ei r r an k s(e.g., M arcion) , we n ti nanothe r direc t ion , c la imin g that Jesus Chris tw a s o n eunifiedb e in gw h o w a s i nfac tc o m p le te l y d iv in e . C h r is tw a s G o d him se lf ,c o me t o e art h f o r t h e re de m p tio n o f h i s p eo ple . B u t be c au s e h e w a s G od , h ec o u ld sc arc e l y h av e e xp erie nc e d t h e re st ric t io n s an d f in it ud e o f h u m a n it y .A nds oJ es u swas notr e al l y h u m a n ;he o n l y"seemed"or"appeared"to be .Such Chris t ian s hav e been tradi t ionally calle d docetis ts( f ro m th eG re e k w or dSOKSIV,m e a nin g t o see m o r ap p e a r ). 4 8T h e y w er e o pp ose d b y th eorthodox ,w h o ins is te d tha t Chris t ' s appe aranc ew a s n odecept ion :h e h ada c t u a l ly beena re a l h u m a n b e in g , th e W o r d o f G o d m ad e re a l f le sh.T here w er e othe r c hristo lo gic a l vie w s th a t c am e t o b e re je cte d b y th erepresentativeso f in c ip ie n t o rt h o do x y , v ie w s t h a t ,fo r a n um b e ro fre aso n st o b e sp elle d o u t i n th e c ou rs e o f o u r d isc u ssio n , a r e n e i th e r a s p ro m i ne n t i nthes ou rc e sno r a sg e r m an et o th i sproject.49In de e d ,th ep i c t u r e o v e ra l lw a sfarm or e c om ple x th a northodo xsou rc e s m ak e i t ou t t o b e . B ut , a s I w il lre p e at e dly p o in t o ut ,m yco ncern sf o r th ep r e se n t st ud yar eles s w i t h h eres yas i t a c t u a ll yw ast h a n w it h he re s ya s i t w a sperceived perceived , t ha tis , b yth ef o r eru n ne r so f th ep a r t y t h a t e v en tu a ll y a tt ain e da le ve lo f do m in an c e .F or i t w a s th ep e rc e p tio no ft h e i r o p po sit io n th a tle ds cribe so f th eproto -orthodoxpa r t yt oc h a ng ethesacre d t ext s t h a t t h e y t r a ns m i tt ed . T h es e Ch ris -t ia ns u n de rs to o d t h e i r o p p o ne n t sa sd e ny in go n e o ra no th e ro f th ec e n tra ltheseso f th ef a it h .F o r th erepresenta t ive so fi nc i p ien t o rt h o do xy, Ch ris tw a sdivine.He wasals o h u m a n . Y e t ,he was not twobe ings ,buto ne .Th eortho-do xChris tolog yo f th e f o u rt ha n d f if t h centur ies , tha ti s , theCh r is to lo g y t h a t


30/328

T h eTexto f S c rip tu re i n a n A g e o f D isse n t 1 5camet o b e th ed o m in an t p o sit io n w it h i n C h ris tia nit y , re p re se nt sa c are fu lw ork in g ou t o f th e c onse que nc e s o f thes e p arad oxi c a l af f i rm at ion s .

The Use of Literature inOrthodoxPolemicsIfi t i st r u e th a tth eproto-orthodo xw r i te r so f th esecon dan d th i r d c e ntur ie sc an b eu n d er st o o d b e tt e rb yw h a t t h e y re je c te d t h a nb yw h a t th e ya ff irm e d ,w e w o u l d d o w e l l b ef o r e p ro c e ed in g m u c h f u rt h e rt o co nside r t h e c h ara c te roft he i roppositiont oview s the y considere d erroneous .For th ep urp ose so fth is ske tc hI willno tc onc e r nmyse l fw i t h n on l it e raryformso f op p osit ion , suc h a s soc ia l os trac ism , e c onom i c p ressure s , an d p o lit -ical machinat ions.O fc ourse , thes e m e asure s w e re som e t im e s use dan do f te nprovede ff ec t iv e ,an d a na c c o u nt in go ft he m mak e sfo r a ni n teres ti n g s to ry .T o n o sm al l ex te n t , B aue r' s ow n w or k w a s c on c e rn e d w i t h suc h m at ters . B u tt he c onc ern s h e r ear em o r e dir ec t l y re la te dt o th el it e ra t u r e p ro du c e dan dt ransmitted b y t h eorthodoxpar ty ,f o r i t i swi thinth ec on te x to f th eir l i teraryendeavors tha tI ca nsituat et h ephenomeno no f m yparticula r interest , namely ,the w ay sscribe sm od if ie d thei rtext so fScriptur ei nligh to f th ep ole mic a lcontextswi th in wh ich the y worked, a l terin g the manuscr ip ts they reproduc e dto m ak e t h e m m or eorthodo xo n th e o n eh an dan dles s suscep t ib let oh e re t -icalm isu s e o n t h eother.

Polemical Trac ta t es a n d P o p u la r LiteratureT hep o le m ic a l l it e ra t u r eo f th esec on dan d t hir d c e nt u rie s c o mp rise s b ot htractatesa im e d dire c tl y a t e xp o sin g an dr ef u tin ghe re t ic a l op i ni o n (e.g . , th elost work so fJus t i nan dHegessipus ,an d th em or ef a m il ia rwrit ing so f Ire n -aeus, Hippolytus ,an d Ter tul l ian 5 0)an dl i te rar y works ostensibl y devote dt oothere nd s t ha t h ap pe nt o tak eu p th ep o l e m ic a l ta s k m i d st re a m (e .g. ,th ew r it in gs o fCle me n to f A le x an dr i aan dO rige n) .A s a ru le , th es e w rit in g san ti c ip a te E use b iu si n the i r p red ile c t io nfo rv it rio l ,an d i t i s no tc e rt ai ni neveryc as e w h e th e rth eheresiologis t s correc t l y unders too dth ep osit ion s the ya t tac k e d, o r e ve n , w he n the y did , w he the r the y p re se n te d the m ac c u rate ly . Inanycase ,t h e i r re p o rt s w e r e a ny t h in g b u t d is in te re st ed . T o so m e e xt e nt , t h equestiono fa c c ura c yi sraise db y th eac c o u nt s t h em se lv es ,a s the y oc c asion -allys ta n d a t o dd s w it h on eanother.51B u t th e q u est io n ha s b ec o m e p ar tic u -larlyp e rp le x in g sin c eth ed isc o ve r yo f th e N a gH a mm ad i lib ra ry , w h er eGnost ics appea ri nsome respec t s qui t ed i f feren tf ro mho wthe y w e re de p ic te dby t h e i rorthodoxopponents.52T h eat tack s levele db y theorthodoxagains t opp osin g viewpoint s becamestereotyped f airl yq u i c k l y : 5 3Heretic sar enearl y everywhere accusedo fb e i n gself-contradictory,p a t e nt l y ab s u rd ,an dm u tua l l y d iv e rge nt .I nc on t rast ,o r -thodoxC hr i st ian sar edescr ibe da sconsistent , sensible ,an du n if ie d .H ere tic sinventd oc t rin e s tha t evide nc en oc l e a r c onn ec t io nt o th eap osto li c t rad it i o ntheyc l ai mt o represent.T h eorthodox,o n th eo th e r h a n d ,f a i th f u ll yt ra ns m i tth et e a c hin g so fJesusan d h i sapostles ,a st h es e h av eb ee nk no w n f ro mth e


31/328

16T h eOrthodoxC o r r u p t io n o fS c r i p t u r everybeginning .Hereticsd is avo w t h e c lea r t each ing s o f S cr ip t u r e , per ver t ingsc r ip t u ra l d o c trin e s w it h id ea s d ra w n f ro m J u da is m o r p ag a nphilosophy.54T heorthodoxpreserve th e teachings o f Scr ip ture u nsul l ied , se t t ing for th thei ror ig inal meanin g apar t fro m externa l inf luences .Mosto f t he s e p ro n o u n c e m e nt s are , o f c ou rse , e m o t io n all y c h arg ed , a n dprove les su se fu lfo runderstandin gth eac tua l teaching so f th ehere tica l group st h a nfo rseein g th evalu e so f t h eorthodox: fo rt h e m t ru t hi sunified,c o he re nt ,c l ea r, an c ie nt , an dapostolic .T h e he a t o f th e de bat e i s e vide n t i n o th e r re -spectsa sw e ll ,fo ri ns ta nce ,i n th est ere o ty pe d c h arg e so fm o r a l im p r o p rie t yleveledwi t h surpris in g f requenc y agains t here tica l opponents . Eusebius' s c lai mt h at Sim o nan d h i sf o l lo w er s enga g ei nact ivit ie s"mor edisgus tin g tha nth efoulestc r im eknown"isfairlytypical.55 Pa rt icu larly unsavo ry are the detaile dal lega t ions o f vil er e lig io u s pra c t ices : Fo r inst ance , Irenaeu s , w h o s eA g a in s tt h e H e r e s ie s i s t h e ear lies t h eresio lo g ica l w o r k t o h a v e su r vived , c la im s t h a tthe Valent inian s inst ruc t thos e wh opossessth e divine seed t o g iv e thei r spi ri ttospi ri tua l th ingsand t h e i rflesh to fleshlythings, mak in g indiscriminate cop -ulat ion no t o nl y p e r m is sa b l eb u t a d e s i d e r a t u m fo r th epneumatikoi( A d v .Haer.I , 6,3 4 ) ;tha tth eCarpocratian spractice indiscriminatesex ,indee dt h a t t h e i r t h eo lo g y co m pel s t h e m t o v io lat e ever y co nce ivable m o r a l la w a n de t h ica l no r m s o a s t oa vo i d b ein g re in c a rn at e da din f in i tu m (A d v. H ae r. I ,2 5, 4 ) ; an d th a t th e he re ti c M a rc u s e xc ite s a tt ra c tiv e w o m e nb yinspi rin gt h em t ospea k i nt on gu e s ,af te rw hic h th e y b ec om e p u t t y i n h i slasciviou sh a nds(A d v . H a e r . I , 13 ,3).56W h e th e r th es e c harge sar eI renaeus' sow n o rthoseo f h i ss ou rc e si s i nm an y ins tance s nearl y impossible t od ec id e .I n an ycase, th i s k in do fChrist ia n polemi c scarcel y origina te d wi t h controvers ie sa tth e en d o f th esec on d c e nt ury . Q u it et o th e c o n t ra ry , Ir en ae u sw a ss im p l yapplyingp ro v e n te c h n iq u e s at te st e da se arl ya s th e N e wT e stam en t p erio ditself.Thus, FrederikWisseh a s dem o nst ra t e dtha tt h e p o r t ra y a l o fone'sene-miesas promiscuou s reproba te s wa s f irmly entrenche d i n Christ ia n c irc le s b yth e t im e o f th e w rit in g o f th e letter o fJude.57T h e d e via n t Ch rist ia n s t h a tJ u deopposesar e l icentious(v . 4); indu lg einu nna t u r a l lu st (v . 7) andc o rru p tt h e f le s h (v . 8 ) ;t h e y c aro us e to ge th e r(v . 12 ) an df ollo wt h ei r u n go d l y p as -sions (v . 18). A s Wissepointso u t , i t i s h a r d t o im a g in e su ch w ildf ol kc atc h -ing an yc o ng re ga tio n u n a w a re s( v . 4 ) ,m a kin g i ta p p ea r t h a t Ju d eh imsel fi sfallingb ac k o n t ra dit io na l rh e to ri c t o p ole mic iz e again s t h i sopponents.58Moreover,i t i ss u re l ys ignif ican tfo r recognizin g th es te re o ty p ic a l c h ara c te rofth e s e slu r s t h a t th e Gnos t i c w rit ing s themselve s painta n al togethe rdif fe r -ent pic ture , consis tent l y urgin ga nascet i cl i fe-s tyl efo r their followers.

59T heh e in o u s b e h a vio r alle ge do f th eh ere t ic s s ta nd si ns ha r pre lie fw it hthe f lawless pu r i ty o f th eorthodox.Star t ing qui te earl y in ou r per io d w e f ind

storiesc i rcu la ti n g co ncer ning th er ef u sa lo forthodoxle ad er s t o c o m mi t an yim m o r a l ac t , reg ardles s o f t h ep u n i sh m e n t . 6 0T h emost p o p u l a r f or mo f su c hstoriesi s th eC h ris tia n m ar ty ro l o gy ,a tal etha t d em o n st ra te sth eab so lu t em o r a l rec t it u d eo f th e f ai th f u l ,eve ni n th et hro e so ft o rt u r ean dde at h .T h eearlies t survivin g exam plei s t h e f am o u sM a r t y r d o m o fP o l y c a r p , th est o r yo fanorthodo xsain t w h ore fu se st o c om p ro mis e h i s c o nv ic tio ns ,eve nw h e n


32/328

T h e T e x t o f S cr ip tu re i n a n Ag e o fD iss en t 1 7c o n f r o n t e dwit h publi c scorn an d execution . Th e fictitious element s of th eaccount ar es ign if ican tprecisel y becaus e th e bul k o f th erepor tappear s t ohavebee n derive d f ro ma neyewitness. 61Th estor yi n it spublishe df o r mheightensth emiraculou s characte ro fthi s grea torthodo xsaint ,t owho mGod bore witness in the hour of his greatest torment .Thereis some question ,infact ,a s t owhethe r Polycar p actuallysu f f e r san ypain when burneda t th estake, fo r th e autho r suggest s tha t Go d performe d a miracle in not allowin gthe fire to touc h th e martyr' s body, whil e the sweet smel l of incense, instea dofth eree ko fsizzlin gf le sh ,f ille d th eair . Eve n more remarkablean df ull yindica t ive o fthis championo forthodoxy's righ t standing before Godwhena soldie r pierce s Polycarp' s side , suc h a quantity of bloo d issue s forth a s t odouse th e entir e conflagration . A later pious redacto r ha s gon e eve n f urt he rto portra y a dove flying forthf ro mth e gas h i n Polycarp' s side , perhap s sig -nifyingh i syieldingu p o f th e( ho ly )spirit .

Here,then , i s a sain t whos e Go d thwart s hi sopponents 'plot s agains thim,even in death. Th e embellishment s of the accoun t serve a clear purpos ein m a g ni f y in ga well-known leade ro f th eorthodo xmovement .I t i s n oacci -dent,i nthi sconnection ,tha ti t wa s th eorthodo xpart yi nparticula rtha tstressedth eglorie so fmartyrdoman d th eneedt oremainf a i th f u leve ni n t h efaceo fdeath. Account so fsuch glorious martyrdoms help buttress thi s char-acteristically orthodox view , bothf o r th ef o r ti f ic a t io no f th emartyr san d f o rtheconfutationo fothe r Christia ngroups ,notably certai n Gnostics ,wh o al -legedlyspurnedth enecessityo fsuch stalwart adherenceto the fa i th . 6 2In anyevent,a ft e rth ecirculatio no fPolycarp's martyrdom , other martyrologie sbe -gant o make their appearance. In these as well, the martyrs retain thei r puritybeforeGod,r ef u sin gt oengageinactivityof anykind tha t migh t compromisetheir f ait h .I nreturn,G o dsustain s th eorthodox f a it h f u li ntheir timeo ftrial,enabling them to remai n courageous an df a it h fu li n torture an d deathhar dproofo f th edivin e approvalo ftheir understandingo f th e fa i th . 6 3

T h e Canono f ScriptureA sI have shown , implici ti n th eallegation s agains tth eheretic so fheinou sbehavioro n th e on e han d an d i n th e account s o f th e suprem e piet y o f th eorthodoxo n th eothe rar eunexpresse d assumption s abou tth enatur eo f"truth"for example , tha t i t is related to moral rectitude an d sincerity , whereasitsopposite ,"falsehood,"i s associated wit hv il epractices an d duplicity . Formost o f th e participant s i n thes ee arl yChristia n debates ,"truth "wa s als ocloselyrelate d t o"authority. "Justa s th e earl y theologica l debate s wer e inpartove r powe ran d wh o wa sabletowieldit , so toothe y were concerne dwith authorit y an d wh o was able to claim it. It is this issue of authority tha trelatesmos tclosely to another use of literature in this polemical context . No tonlydidd i f fe r e n tpartie s produce literatur e designed to confut e the position sofother s whil e establishin g the validit y o f thei r own , severa l group s als oargued tha t certai n writing s f ro mearlie r days were endowed wit h sacred au -thority, an d coul d b e employe d to authoriz e a correct understandin g o f th e


33/328

18 T h eOrthodoxC o r r u p ti o n o fS c r i p t u r erelig ion. Thi s i s the mo veme n ttowarda c a n o n o f S c rip t u re , a m o ve m e n t t h a te ve n tu at ed i n t h e f o rm a t io n o f a " Ne w " T est am e n t , a c olle ctio n o f au t h o ri -t a tive bo o k stha tth eorthodoxu se dt oa r b it r a t e t h eo lo g ica l c la im s . Beca us eth eo ver a rch i n g co ncer no ft h i s s tu d yi sw i t h th ea l t e ra t io no ft h es e b o o k si nt he c o urs e o f t he i r t ra nsc rip t io n , w e d o w e l l t o c o nsid e r t h e th eo lo gic a l im -por tance o ft h i s c a no nfo rChrist ian so f th ee a rl y centur ies .T he h isto r y o f th e de ve lo pm en t o f th e c ano n i s c om plex , an d w e ar ef o r t un a t e t oh av efu l lan d co m pet en t t r eat m ent s r ea dilyavailable.64A l t h o u g hnu m er o u s de t ail s co ncernin g th epro c es s r e m a i n i nd is pu t e , ce r ta i n po in t so fsignificance f o r th ep re se n t d isc u ssio n a p p e a rr el at iv e l yse c ure .T h eea rlies tC h ris tia ns al re a d y po sse sse d a g ro u p o f b o o k s t h a t th e y c o nsid ere d au t h o ri -ta t ive , namely , th eJ ew i s h Scr ip t u res o ra tl ea s ta larg e por t io no ft he m ,fo rth isc an o n ha ditsel fno t bee n f inalized by the f irs t ce ntury.65E a rly w i t h in t h eC h ris tia n m o v em e nt , a s ea rl y a s th e N e w T e st am e n t pe rio d , so m e o f Je su s 'fol lowersb e ga n t o re ga r d hi s o w n te ac h in g s a s h a v in ga n au t h o r it y eq u a l t ot h at o f Sc rip tu re . T h e w o rd s o f Je su s w e r e u se d t o reso lv e th eo lo gic a l an dp r ac t ic a l issu e s w i th i ne arl y C h ris tia n c o m m u n it ie san dw e r e oc c a sio na ll yqualifieda sS cr ip t u r e be f o r et h e e n d o f t h e f irs tcen t u r y .66S o t oo th ew rit ing sof th eA p ostle P au l w er e ac c orde da na u t h o rit at iv e st at u si ns om e c irc le s ,w h e r e th e y w e r e sim i la rl y ra n k e d a m o n g t h e Sc rip t u re s ( 2 P et .3:16).T hu s ,evenw i t h i n th e pe rio d o f th e N e w T e s ta m e nt , so m e C h ris tia n s h a d b e gu n t oadopta ne w se t o fa u t h o rit ie s J e su san d h i sapostlestob e plac e d o n a neq u a l f o o t in g w i t hth e O l dT e s ta m e nt .I t i s n oac c id e n t th a tth e N e wTesta -m e nt e v en tu all y in c o rp o ra te d G o sp el s( Jesu s )a n d ap osto li c w r it in g s(P au lando t h e rs ) .W e m a y never kno w pr ec is e ly w h at ro le t h e co n t ro vers ie s be t w een o r th o -d ox y an d h ere s y p la ye d i n t h e de ve lo p m en t o f t h e N e w T estam e n tcanon .Butt hi s m u c hiscertain:o n e o f th esalien t criteria applie dt odetermin e w hetheraw rit in g c ou l db ec o n sid ere d c a no nic a lw a sw h eth e ri t w a s"apostolic, "m e an in g, a t t h eve r yle ast , t h a t i t c o ul d re aso nab l y b e at trib u t e d t o Je su s 'apost les o r thei r c los e a ll ies . 67T h i s doe s no t m ea ntha ta m er e c lai m o f ap -o st o lic a u t h o rs h i p g u a ra n t ee d a book' si nc l u s io n am o n g th e S c rip t u re s . T h eorthodoxb ish o p Serap io n , w h o ha d in it ia ll yp erm it te d th e re ad in g o f th eG o s p e lo fP e t e r i n hi sco ngreg at io ns , resc inde dh i sdec isio na ssoo na s h ere ad th e b oo k f o rhimselfa n d sa w i n i t a h er e t ica lChristology.68Hi s decisio nw a s f ollo w e d b y th e c h u rc h a t large , w h ic h als o c on st ru e d th ebook' scon -tentsa s nonapos to l ic .Fo rh im ,an d fo rt h e m , t h i s m e a n t th a t d ec isio n s c o n -cerning"apostolicity"w e r e u l t im a t e l y b ased n o t o n c l aim s o f au t h o r sh i p p e rse, bu t o n a book' se sse nt ia l c o n f o rm i t yt o th ere gu la fidei , th a tis , t o th e"apostolic" d oc t r in etha torthodo xCh r is t ia n s c laim e da st he i row nu niqu epossession.Implic it i nsu c h ju d gm e n t si s t h ee nt ir e no t io no f th e"apostoli csu cces -sion,"t ow h ic hth eorthodoxm a d e e nd le s s ap p e a li n t h e i re f f o rt st og ro u n dt h e ir t each ing s i n th e t im e- h o no re d t r u t h s co nveye d by Jesu s t o h i s f o llow er sand th ro u g h th e mt o th eorthodoxchurches.69T he s e c h u rc h e s w ere t h o u g h ttoh a v e be e n est ab lish e db y theapostles ,wh o ha da p p o in te d t h ei r le ad ers ,


34/328

T h e T e x t o fS c r i p t u r e i n a n A g e o fD i ss e n t 1 9e ndo w ed t he m w it h au t h orit y ,an d b eq u e at h e dt oth e m th ei ro w nw r it ing s .S o , fo r a h eresio lo g is t l ik e T er tu l lia n , t h e a r gu m ent s f o r apo st o li c s u ccessio nandS c r ip t u ra l au t h o rit yg oh an di nh an d .I n h i sP r e s c r ip t i o n o fH e r e t ic s h ec a n m a i n ta i n t h a torthodo xC h r is tia n s n ee d no t e ve n e ng ag e h e r et ic s i n d e -b at e o v e r th em e a nin go fSc r ip tures , th e f o u n t ai no f al ltruth.T h eS cr ip t u re sbelongt o th eh e i r so f t h eapostles,an d t ot h e m a lo ne . H ere t ic s h a v en oc laimtot he s e sa c re dtexts ,an d s ot h e i r in t e r pre t a t io n so f th e mar ea u t o m a t i ca l lyruledo u t o fc ou rt .Thisi s b y n om ean st o sa y t h a ta book'so rt h o do x yw a

Bart Ehrman - The Ortodox Corruption of the Scripture

Documents

Transcript of Bart Ehrman - The Ortodox Corruption of the Scripture