Revisiting Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
September 20th, 2007 by 
Tony
As mentioned in a previous post, I am teaching a course this semester on the New Testament Apocrypha (while I prefer “Christian Apocrypha,” NTA has more brand-name recognition). I’m hoping to integrate our discussions in class into blog postings on Apocryphicity in order to encourage participation from the students (thus killing two birds with one stone).
Our first lecture of the term took place Wednesday night (Sept. 19). We began with a discussion of canon formation and the concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. I assigned readings on canon lists and the first chapter of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. In all of my recent reading of conservative, anti-Apocrypha apologetic, I have found that, while some take issue with Bauer and his successors (Koester, Ehrman, etc.), no-one denies the fundamental accuracy of his chapter on Edessa.
For those who have not read Bauer, it is the author’s claim that, despite the legend reported by Eusebius that Christianity came to Edessa in the first century as the result of a correspondence between a certain King Abgar and Jesus, the earliest forms of Christianity in Edessa was Marcionite (followed soon by Bar Daisan who championed the use of Tatian’s Diatessaron over Marcion’s gospel). Orthodoxy was slow to take root in Edessa, leading to the orthodox group being christened “Palutians” after the name of their bishop Palut—the title of “Christianity” was given to the region’s first Christians: the Marcionites. Helmut Koester, in a 1965 article, augmented Bauer’s theory in light of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library. Koester claimed the first form of Christianity in Edessa was that of the “Thomas group” reflected in the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Thomas, and the Acts of Thomas. Regardless of which heretical group was there first, “orthodox” Christianity was not normative in Edessa until at least the fourth century.
Bauer’s work is helpful for making the point that the labels of “orthodoxy” and “heresy” depend on one’s perspective. The acrobatics that Bauer must perform to make this point are impressive; he must examine several sources for Christianity in the area and determine that many of them have been invented (including the Abgar correspondence, the Doctrina Addai, and 3 Corinthians) or interpolated (sections of the Edessene Chronicle) by later orthodox Christians (the production of Apocrypha is not limited to so-called heretics). If accurate, Bauer shows that orthodox Christians are quite effective at rewriting history to buttress their claim that in all places Christianity began as orthodoxy and was later corrupted by heretics. Though they accede that Bauer is correct about Edessa, conservative writers do not want to accede that Christianity could have developed similarly in other places. Certainly we should be careful not to make arguments from silence, but it is possible that the evidence is simply lost to us. Bauer also illustrates the need to treat orthodox claims about their origins with suspicion; as he states regarding the orthodoxy portrayal of Christian history: “I do not mean to say that this point of view must be false, but neither can I regard it as self-evident, or even as demonstrated and clearly established” (p. xxiv).
Bauer’s statement is a manifesto that can be (and should be) applied universally—i.e., throughout one’s university education and beyond. If students learn nothing else from this course but that one sentence, I’ll be happy.
Posted in 2007 NTA Course, Orthodoxy and Heresy | 
| Permalink
September 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
This might be a conservative estimate on what they will learn.
Phil H.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:34 am
I think the reason why conservatives scholars aren’t much worried about Edessa as an example of the formation of an ‘orthodox’ party is that it isn’t the central part of the claim for being earlier than the ‘hetrodox’ positions. That claim is taken back to the New Testament and the claim that the ‘orthodox’ preserve the true apostolic message in a way that the ‘heterodox’ simply don’t. The fact that Eusebius’ account of Edessa and King Abgar strikes us as a little implausible doesn’t really affect the central claim of ‘orthodox’ Christians. That is why conservative scholars can let the Edessan claim go relatively easily (that and the evidence really doesn’t help Eusebius very much).
What worries me about Bauer isn’t that he is wanting to re-examine history and not take ‘orthodoxy’ for granted, but, rather, that this is often code for a hermeneutic of suspicion which will give priority to anything but the ‘orthodox’ view. I don’t ask for the ‘orthodox’ view to be taken for granted. I’m asking for it to be considered as an option.
Peace,
Phil
September 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
I think the reason why conservative scholars aren’t much worried about Edessa as an example of the formation of an ‘orthodox’ party is that it isn’t the central part of the claim for being earlier than the ‘hetrodox’ positions. That claim is taken back to the New Testament and the claim that the ‘orthodox’ preserve the true apostolic message in a way that the ‘heterodox’ simply don’t. The fact that Eusebius’ account of Edessa and King Abgar strikes us as a little implausible doesn’t really affect the central claim of ‘orthodox’ Christians. That is why conservative scholars can let the Edessan claim go relatively easily (that and the evidence really doesn’t help Eusebius very much).
What worries me about Bauer isn’t that he is wanting to re-examine history and not take ‘orthodoxy’ for granted, but, rather, that this is often code for a hermeneutic of suspicion which will give priority to anything but the ‘orthodox’ view. I don’t ask for the ‘orthodox’ view to be taken for granted. I’m asking for it to be considered as an option.
Peace,
Phil
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I believe the orthodoxy’s version of events is an option, however, given the number of distortions and interpolations for which we have evidence (and the countless others of which we are not yet aware) it seems unlikely that such a dominant position can be trusted.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 am
What I usually find is that there are problems with the conventional ‘orthodox’ accounts, but that, if we applied the same standards of evidence to other traditions (insofar as we have them), we don’t get much better results. Really, it is applying that same standard which I am asking for.
Peace,
Phil
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Equitable treatment for all! Amen.
I don’t think we can ever truly understand anything in history from an objective standpoint - maybe it’s just my cynicism and/or disbelief. This rings true across any historical field of study - even once one is past present-day preconceptions and the knowledge of the historical filter through which one is looking.
This is as Jesus-y as I get on a Sunday.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Bauer’s outlook (“I do not mean to say that this point of view must be false, but neither can I regard it as self-evident, or even as demonstrated and clearly established”) is quite valuable to even believers of the Christian faith. Courses like the one taught by self-professed non-believers like Dr. Chartrand-Burke should not be feared but embraced by believers. Too often believers are unwilling to delve adequately into the issues (i.e. apply modern historical-critical techniques) for fear that they may uncover something that will drastically jeopardize their faith. Modern exegesis must be applied if believers are to have any credibility when it comes time to defend their faith and religious dogma. Fortunately, the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have witnessed the application of the modern historical-critical method by many Christian academics. Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), for instance, enthusiastically praises and utilizes modern exegesis in his recent book “Jesus of Nazareth.” Ratzinger, however, brings his faith heavily into his presentation of the “historical” Jesus - a fact that he openly admits and wholly endorses. His analysis focuses solely upon the four canonical Gospels as he neglects to examine any Christian Apocrypha. Ratzinger, nonetheless, is a brilliant theologian and gives one (both the believer and non-believer) great insight into the “historical Jesus” in an extremely intelligent dialogue. It is quite clear that Ratzinger believes the “orthodox” view of Jesus to be true, but he does not regard this idea as self-evident. According to Ratzinger, the orthodox view of Jesus should and must be proven to the world at large. Other Christians should apply this logic if they ever want to be taken seriously by secular academia.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The more I live this crazy life of mine, the more I discover that absolutely nothing is for certain, especially for something as personal as faith. Bauer’s argument carries a lot of weight since it is highly improbable that an orthodox Christianity (at least one we would recognize) was established by the time that Christian ideas were beginning to percolate in Edessa.
Being Catholic (just so you all can understand my bias), I have often seen how crazy Christians can be in trying to prove that their religion sprouted perfectly out of the ground instead of developing over several centuries. There’s no shame in acknowledging growth over time.
Cheers,
Joshua