The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity [Paperback]

Andreas J. Köstenberger (Author), Michael J. Kruger (Author), I. Howard Marshall (Foreword)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 9, 2010

Beginning with Walter Bauer in 1934, the denial of clear orthodoxy in early Christianity has shaped and largely defined modern New Testament criticism, recently given new life through the work of spokesmen like Bart Ehrman. Spreading from academia into mainstream media, the suggestion that diversity of doctrine in the early church led to many competing orthodoxies is indicative of today's postmodern relativism. Authors Köstenberger and Kruger engage Ehrman and others in this polemic against a dogged adherence to popular ideals of diversity.

Köstenberger and Kruger's accessible and careful scholarship not only counters the "Bauer Thesis" using its own terms, but also engages overlooked evidence from the New Testament. Their conclusions are drawn from analysis of the evidence of unity in the New Testament, the formation and closing of the canon, and the methodology and integrity of the recording and distribution of religious texts within the early church.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"In the beginning was Diversity. And the Diversity was with God, and the Diversity was God. Without Diversity was nothing made that was made. And it came to pass that nasty old 'orthodox' people narrowed down diversity and finally squeezed it out, dismissing it as heresy. But in the fullness of time (which is of course our time), Diversity rose up and smote orthodoxy hip and thigh. Now, praise be, the only heresy is orthodoxy. As widely and as unthinkingly accepted as this reconstruction is, it is historical nonsense: the emperor has no clothes. I am grateful to Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger for patiently, carefully, and politely exposing this shameful nakedness for what it is."
—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

"The Heresy of Orthodoxy will help many to make sense of what is happening in early Christian studies today. It explains, critiques, and provides an alternative to, the so-called 'Bauer Thesis,' an approach which undergirds a large segment of scholarship on early Christianity. The 'doctrine' that Christianity before the fourth century was but a seething mass of diverse and competing factions, with no theological center which could claim historical continuity with Jesus and his apostles, has become the new 'orthodoxy' for many. The authors of this book do more than expose the faults of this doctrine, they point the way to a better foundation for early Christian studies, focusing on the cornerstone issues of the canon and the text of the New Testament. Chapter 8, which demonstrates how one scholar's highly-publicized twist on New Testament textual criticism only tightens the tourniquet on his own views, is alone worth the price of the book. Köstenberger and Kruger have done the Christian reading public a real service."
—Charles E. Hill, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary

"The Bauer thesis, taken up in many university circles and popularized by Bart Ehrman and through TV specials, has long needed a thorough examination. The Heresy of Orthodoxy is that work. Whether looking at Bauer's thesis of diversity, at contemporary use made of the theory to argue for the early origin of Gnosticism, at the process that led to the canon, or what our manuscript evidence is, this study shows that Bauer's theory, though long embraced, is full of problems that need to be faced. What emerges from this study is an appreciation that some times new theories are not better than what they seek to replace, despite the hype that often comes from being the new kid on the block. It is high time this kid be exposed as lacking the substance of a genuinely mature view. This book does that well, and also gives a fresh take on what the alternative is that has much better historical roots."
—Darrell L. Bock, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Center for Christian Leadership; Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

"This is an admirably lucid and highly convincing rebuttal of the thesis that the earliest form of Christianity in many places was what would later be judged as 'heresy' and that earliest Christianity was so diverse that it should not be considered as a single movement—a thesis first presented by Walter Bauer but most recently advocated by Bart Ehrman. As Köstenberger and Kruger show with such clarity and compelling force, this still highly influential thesis simply does not stand up to scrutiny. By looking at a whole range of evidence—early Christian communities in different regions in the Roman Empire, the New Testament documents themselves, the emergence and boundaries of the canon and its connection to covenant, and the evidence for Christian scribes and the reliable transmission of the text of the New Testament—they show step by step that another view of early Christianity is much more in keeping with the evidence. That is, that there is a unified doctrinal core in the New Testament, as well as a degree of legitimate diversity, and that the sense of orthodoxy among New Testament writers is widespread and pervasive. They also unmask the way contemporary culture has been mesmerized by diversity and the impact this has had on some readers of the New Testament. In this astute and highly readable book—a tour de force—Köstenberger and Kruger have done us all a great service. It is essential reading for all who want to understand the New Testament and recent controversies that have arisen in New Testament Studies."
—Paul Trebilco, Professor of New Testament Studies, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

"Köstenberger and Kruger have written a book which not only introduces the reader to the problematic Bauer thesis and its contemporary resurgence, but which, layer by layer, demonstrates its failure to account reliably for the history of communities, texts, and ideas which flourished in the era of early Christianity. In their arguments, the authors demonstrate their competence in the world of New Testament studies. But, additionally, they weave throughout the book insights into how fallacies within contemporary culture provide fuel for a thesis which long ago should have been buried. Believers will find in these pages inspiration to 'contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.'"
—D. Jeffrey Bingham, Department Chair and Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

"In recent times, certain media darlings have been telling us that earliest Christianity knew nothing of the 'narrowness' of orthodox belief. Now the authors of The Heresy of Orthodoxy have provided a scholarly yet highly accessible rebuttal, showing that what is actually 'narrow' here is the historical evidence on which this old thesis is based. In a culture which wants to recreate early Christianity after its own stultifying image, this book adds a much-needed breath of balance and sanity."
—Nicholas Perrin, Dean, Wheaton College Graduate School

"Köstenberger and Kruger have produced a volume that is oozing with common sense and is backed up with solid research and documentation. This work is a comprehensive critique of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis that the earliest form of Christianity was pluralistic, that there were multiple Christianities, and that heresy was prior to orthodoxy. Respectful yet without pulling any punches, The Heresy of Orthodoxy at every turn makes a convincing case that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is dead wrong. All those who have surrendered to the siren song of postmodern relativism and tolerance, any who are flirting with it, and everyone concerned about what this seismic sociological-epistemological shift is doing to the Christian faith should read this book."
—Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

About the Author

ANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a prolific author, and a distinguished scholar.

MICHAEL J. KRUGER (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is associate professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary, and the author of a number of articles and books on early Christianity.

Product Details

• Paperback: 256 pages
• Publisher: Crossway (June 9, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1433501430
• ISBN-13: 978-1433501432
• Product Dimensions: 0.6 x 5.4 x 8.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (26 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #249,751 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

81 of 88 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Book Review: The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenberger/Kruger July 12, 2010

By D. J. Blackmon II

Format:Paperback

In today's society, there appears to be only one unassailable absolute truth--there is no absolute truth. Further, the quickest way to be labeled hateful, intolerant, or mean spirited is to suggest that the gospel as revealed in scripture is true and is the exclusive way to God. It used to be that those who would label you hateful or mean spirited for saying that were those outside of the church. That is no longer the case, however, and in fact it is among those who profess Christ that you are likely to find the loudest, most shrill voices railing against the notion of absolute truth. Many of those who advocate accepting any and all beliefs as being equally Christian base their position on the works of German theologian Walter Bauer and a contemporary disciple of his, Bart Ehrman. In short, Bauer, and now Ehrman, propose that what we know today as Christianity is not the Christianity of the apostles and certainly not what Jesus taught. Rather, they propose, there was a diverse opinion about Jesus, what He taught, and what the apostles taught and that there was no one view that was more "right" than any of the others. The fact that we today believe that there is only one correct theological position on, for instance, the Virgin Birth is because the Roman church finally won enough theological and political power to squash any theological opposition to their positions. In fact, they assert, what we know today as orthodox Christianity represents the view of the winning side rather than the truth of the gospel.

The book The Heresy of Orthodoxy was not written to refute this Bauer-Ehrman thesis. Rather, as the authors' state, the purpose of the book is to determine "why the Bauer-Ehrman thesis commands paradigmatic stature when it has been soundly discredited in the past". As such, the authors' review three areas where this idea of multiple but equally valid "Christianities" has been thoroughly refuted in the three sections of the book. They first examine whether, as the Bauer-Ehrman thesis suggests, there were actually a wide array of theological beliefs in the early church and that heresy (diversity) actually preceded orthodoxy. Further, they review material related to the development of the New Testament canon and attempt to determine from the historical evidence if the 27 books we know as the New Testament are more the result of random chance ("some books have all the luck"), as Bauer and Ehrman, would have us believe rather than there being something peculiar about these books that makes them Scripture. Finally, they evaluate the assertion made by Bauer and Ehrman that the New Testament Text is so riddled with errors and inconsistencies that it is virtually unreliable as a record of what Jesus and the apostles taught.

Through the 8 chapters, the authors Kostenberger and Kruger deliver a slam dunk in their presentation. They take the thesis that there were no absolute truths in the early church and we certainly have no way to know exactly what they believed anyway and clearly present convincing evidence to the contrary. In fact, as the reader discovers, the evidence for what we know today as orthodox Christianity is overwhelming and that the thesis presented by Bauer-Ehrman ignores significant historical and textual evidence that discredits their position in addition to engaging in occasional circular reasoning. In short, the book would encourage any Christian to have confidence that their faith is in fact "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. (Jude 1:3-NASB)".

I would recommend this book for all Christians who are interested in a better understanding of their faith or who are looking to better educate themselves in issues related to apologetics. The work is a scholarly text and as such is not a "casual read". I could see this being used in a college or seminary classroom. If you're looking for a resource to gain a better understanding of issues related to postmodernism and its effect on Christianity, this would be a great book to add to your library.

38 of 43 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars The Bauer Thesis Demolished August 25, 2010

By George P. Wood VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback

In 1934, Walter Bauer published Rechtsgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im Ältesten Christentum, translated into English in 1971 as Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Krueger summarize the argument of that book, the "Bauer thesis," as follows: "close study of the major urban centers at the end of the first and early second centuries reveals that early Christianity was characterized by significant doctrinal diversity, so that there was no `orthodoxy' or `heresy' at the inception of Christianity but only diversity--heresy preceded orthodoxy." In light of that diversity, Bauer concluded that the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy reflected the triumph of a particular Roman form of Christianity over other forms in the fourth through sixth centuries, which was subsequently projected by the newly minted orthodox back onto their opponents in the theological debates of the second and third centuries, who now were described as heretics.

In The Heresy of Orthodoxy, Köstenberger and Kruger argue that the Bauer thesis is demonstrably false, on both historical and exegetical grounds (Part 1). Despite these manifest failures, however, the Bauer thesis continues to influence our understanding of the historical development of early Christianity.

Part 2 examines this influence in the debate over the extent of the New Testament canon. If earliest Christianity was irreducibly diverse, as Bauer claimed and as scholars such as Bart Ehrman continue to claim, then the 27 books of the New Testament reflect the literary choices of the winning side. Köstenberger and Kruger challenge this interpretation of history in Part 2. They argue that the canon begins to arise, in the New Testament period, as a result of the authority inherent in the apostolic office, whose teachings were committed to writing for future generations. From a very early period in the late first century, the writings associated with the apostles--especially the fourfold Gospel and the collection of Paul's thirteen letters--were known, cited, collected, and distributed among churches. Other writings, such as the Gnostic gospels, which often claimed apostolic provenance, were not even written until the second century, when the apostles had passed from the scene, and espoused ideas that had no rootage in first-century Palestinian soil, the milieu in which Jesus was formed and to which he ministered. Moreover, despite exaggerated claims that the proto-orthodox (Ehrman's preferred name for orthodox Christians in the first three centuries) arbitrarily excluded Gnostic gospels and other second century writings from the biblical canon, the historical record reveals that they were never considered in the first place, precisely because of their late date and non-apostolic provenance. What evidence we do have indicates that 22 of the 27 canonical New Testament books were early on and almost universally agreed to be authoritative, forming the core of the canon.

In essence, Part 1 argues that there is such a thing as normative Christianity. Part 2 argues that the New Testament canon evolved naturally out of this early orthodoxy. Part 3 considers whether modern readers can know that the New Testament documents we have accurately reflect these early apostolic documents. Through writings both academic (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) and popular (Jesus, Interrupted), Ehrman has argued that the answer to this question must be no. Textual criticism has revealed the massive number of textual variants in our extant manuscripts of the New Testament. Further, close study of these variants has revealed--in many cases--a tendency by orthodox scribes to make the text explicitly theologically orthodox. Consequently, one simply cannot know what the apostles themselves taught, for the winning side in the debate of the second and third centuries has corrupted the Scriptures beyond all possibility of repair. The problem with Ehrman's argument is both logical and factual. Logically, we cannot know that the orthodox corrupted the text unless we have a pretty good idea of what the text originally said. Factually, text critics are confident that we have a pretty good idea of what the text originally said because, when it comes to the number of New Testament manuscripts, especially contrasted to the number of manuscripts for other ancient documents, we suffer from what Eldon Jay Epps called "an embarrassment of riches." The overall quality of these manuscripts indicates that Christian scribes took their copyist duties seriously and performed them professionally. Moreover, the vast majority of the textual variants that have been documented are entirely trivial, while those that are major do not affect any doctrine, since they are not the only biblical texts that speak in favor of a doctrine. John 7:53-8:11 is a well-known textual variant, which textual critics are certain (or as close to certain as textual critics can be) was not part of the original Gospel of John. It is not in the earliest and best manuscripts, it was not known to early second century commentators on John, and it is sometimes found appended to late copies of the Gospel of Luke. Remove that wonderful story of Jesus' interaction with the woman caught in adultery and what happens theologically? Nothing. No doctrine hangs on any textual variant, even the major and still disputed textual variants.

In sum, contrary to Bauer and Ehrman, orthodoxy preceded heresy. It was original and normative, while heresy was late and counterfeit. The question that rises as the result of Köstenberger and Kruger's demonstration is why the Bauer thesis still has legs. If it has been refuted in the particulars, why does it live on in general? "The reason it does so, we suspect"--write Köstenberger and Kruger--"is not that its handling of the data is so superiorK or its reasoning is so compelling. The reason is rather that Bauer's thesis...resonates profoundly with the intellectual and cultural climate in the West at the beginning of the twenty-first century." That climate, "contemporary culture's fascination with diversity," is a thoroughgoing relativistic pluralism. I suspect that the authors are onto something important with this observation. The major failing of The Heresy of Orthodoxy, in my opinion, is that they didn't argue this thesis with as lengthy and well-documented a case as they offered in demolition of the Bauer thesis.

30 of 36 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A Powerful Defense of Historic Orthodoxy July 26, 2010

By Aaron Armstrong

Format:Paperback

As postmodern ideas have taken root in our culture, exclusive truth claims have increasingly come under attack. Jesus is the only way. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. Orthodoxy and heresy exist.

These are not popular ideas. And in academic circles, the desire to debunk these beliefs has been making the rounds for some time--most notably with the publication of German academic Walter Bauer's work Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934). In this volume, Bauer puts forth the idea that, rather than Christianity being characterized from its earliest days as unified in the preaching of Jesus' apostles, the earliest Christians were marked by radical diversity. Today, Bauer has found an impassioned advocate in scholar Bart Ehrman, whose books such as Misquoting Truth and Jesus Interrupted, have brought Bauer's thesis to the popular level--to the point that today, the only heresy is orthodoxy.

That's why Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote The Heresy of Orthodoxy. In this book, the authors carefully examine the Bauer-Ehrman thesis and seek to show readers why we can trust the Bible and rest in the knowledge that the faith we have is what was taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

Unity or Pluralism: Which Came First?
Divided into three parts, The Heresy of Orthodoxy first deals with pluralism and the origins of the New Testament. How did the Bauer-Ehrman thesis come about? How diverse was early Christianity? And when did heresy first arise?

While the Bauer thesis asserts that different "Christianities" developed in geographical regions and that "the Church Fathers overstated their case that Christianity emerged from a single, doctrinally unified movement" (p. 40), the authors' brief survey of the available data suggests otherwise. Starting as Bauer did with late first/early second century sources, they reveal a Christianity that is marked by remarkable consistency, particularly when dealing with the person of Jesus Christ. The authors write:

"Although the late first and early second century gave birth to a variety of heretical movements, the set of (Christological) core beliefs known as orthodoxy was considerably earlier, more widespread, and more prevalent than Ehrman and other proponents of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis suggest. . . . [W]hen orthodoxy and heresy are compared in terms of genesis and chronology, it is evident that orthodoxy did not emerge from a heretical morass . . . heresy grew parasitically out of an already established orthodoxy." (pp 66-67)

But rather than relying on comparatively late extrabiblical sources as did Bauer, Kostenberger and Kruger investigate the earliest sources we have: The New Testament itself. Their study reveals that, contrary to Bauer and Ehrman, orthodoxy even at that stage was far more widespread and the prevalence of heresy was far too narrow to suggest that there was an even playing field.

In their assertions, the authors are very careful in how they portray the opposing view. While often their incredulity at the poor scholarship is evident, they are careful not to make character judgments. There work is marked by a humble confidence. That's something I greatly appreciate, especially reading a book with a slightly more academic tone.

Developing the New Testament
Next, the authors address the development of the New Testament: How did we get the books we have? How can we know that these are the right ones? What does the "canon" actually mean?

I greatly appreciated this section as it shed a great deal of light on what the canon is and why it's important. The authors show that the idea of a canon (a rule or standard of measure) was something that actually preceded and led to the development of the New Testament; it wasn't something imposed on the documents by later ecumenical councils.

What the authors show is that the New Testament, just as the Old Testament before it, is "at its core, a covenantal document" (p. 112). In fact, a written covenant would have been expected in light of the New Covenant inaugurated with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, suggest the authors (p. 113). This understanding, allows us to "move beyond the practice of studying the canon simply by starting in the period of the early church and them moving backward to the New Testament. Instead we can start our studies of canon with the New Testament itself and then move forward to the time of the early church" (p. 124).

As they continue their examination, they conclude that rather than, as suggested by Bauer and Ehrman, that the canon was open until the fourth century and beyond, "the theological convictions of early Christians pointed toward a canon that was restricted to books from the apostolic time period and thus, in principle, `closed' at the very outset" (p. 175).

"The historical evidence suggests that under the guidance of God's providential hand and through the work of the Holy Spirit, early Christians rightly recognized these twenty-seven books as the books that had been given to them as the final and authoritative deposit of the Christian faith." (p. 175)

The authors' work is sharp and thought-provoking. For those who want or need a primer on the development of the canon, this would be section would be an ideal starting point.

The Reliability of Scripture
Finally, the authors address the most contentious issue: The reliability of the New Testament manuscripts. Can we trust them? Were they altered by scribes for nefarious theological reasons? How do we know that what the authors originally wrote is what our Bibles say?

This is, perhaps, one of the greatest challenges Christians face today--is the Bible reliable as a historical document? Ehrman would say no for a variety of reasons.

A key issue is that of illiteracy--the suggestion that the vast majority of early Christians were simple peasants and thus unable to read. What modern scholarship reveals, though, is that the early church actually covered a fairly diverse cross section of society. While many early Christians were illiterate, many were also of a fairly high social standing--including the Apostle Paul.

Even then, it's not safe to assume that social status determines literacy. As the authors point out, "ancient scribes themselves were most often found among the slave class. Members of the wealthy upper class would often not read or write themselves (even though they may have had the ability), but would employ lower-class slaves or scribes to do it for them" (p. 184).

What Kostenberger and Kruger reveal is the seemingly bookish nature of early Christianity--they were not concerned simply with passing on oral tradition and public proclamation, but had developed a "vivid `textual culture' commited to writing, editing, copying, and distributing Christian books, whether scriptural or otherwise" (pp. 200-201). They continue:

"[T]here are no good historical grounds for doubting that there were adequate means within the early Christian communities for reliably transmitting books. The only question now is whether the manuscripts themselves are so filled with errors and mistakes that we are forced to doubt their integrity." (p. 201)

While Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus argues that the New Testament documents are so riddled with errors that that there is no way for us to know what the original authors really said, textual criticism and the sheer enormity of the number of documents we have available tell another story. Currently we have well over 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament--by far the most of any book from antiquity. Ever.

Of these, existing extant documents and fragments date to as early as 35 years after the original writing. The sheer volume of manuscripts and the early dates of many of them is unheard of. While there a great number of variances, the vast majority are insignificant (basically spelling errors and word inversion); things that do not affect the meaning of the passage whatsoever. The number of "significant" variations is relatively small, and most we know about--these are things like the extended ending of Mark, which may not have been original and the story of the woman caught in adultery found in John 7, as well as a few places where the text could say one thing, but it could say another (and these are found in the footnotes in our Bibles).

The authors' point in addressing these things as thoroughly as they do is to show readers the amazing gift we have in the New Testament manuscripts. No other book from antiquity has been as well preserved, to the point that we have almost too many copies(!). And because of the early dates of many manuscripts and the sheer tonnage of material we have to examine, we can feel confident that we do have contained within our New Testament today, the words the original authors intended.

Conclusion
Kostenberger and Kruger reveal themselves to be scholars par excellence in The Heresy of Orthodoxy. They are thoughtful, deliberate and carefully weigh the evidence available and reach what, if we are being intellectually honest, is an undeniable conclusion: The Bible we have is trustworthy; diversity was not nearly as radical as we are led to believe--and the faith we have today is the same as that which was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Read the book, wrestle with it, and be assured by it.

-----

A complementary copy of this book was provided for review purposes by Crossway Books