Author’s Note: This is part 1 of a 4-part series on tradition adapted from a paper I recently authored.
What is the process surrounding the development of texts into sacred scriptures, particularly in new religious movements? Additionally, what relation, if any, does this process have with the defining of orthodoxy? This series will examine these two movements as a re-imagining of what is nominally considered tradition, “the process of handing something on to another generation and that which is handed on” [Robert Murray, “Tradition and Sacred Texts,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6:1 (Jan 2004): 4]
These two ideas—orthodoxy and scriptures—are codependent concepts that require the other for proper existence. Without a defined orthodoxy, it is nearly impossible to define a set of scriptures. Without a set of scriptures, there cannot be a strong definition of orthodoxy. These two movements interact with each other reciprocally: scriptures define orthodoxy while orthodoxy defines and interprets scriptures. In other words, it is a constant dialogue and interaction between theology and text that provides the context for present and future instances. All of orthodoxy and scripture is embedded in the context of the sum of its previous interactions and dialogues. This series will look at each of these, first from a theoretical perspective, followed by a few case examples. Tradition has the association that it has always been as such, but this article will show that this is only because the interactions between scriptures and orthodoxy force them to be reinterpreted as having always been the case.
Rightly Dividing
Christianity did not begin in a vacuum, nor with its theology fully formed at inception. Its orthodoxy was largely a process of refinement that is most visible in the many creeds that still stand today (e.g., the Nicene Creed). What we do know about the earliest groups of Christians is that they were, at times, wildly divergent with some believing Jesus to be purely divine without any kind of bodily form and others believing Jesus to be strictly human adopted by God later on [See Bart Ehrman, The New Testament (New York: Oxford, 2000) chapter 1 as well as Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2005) chapter 6].
Every one of these groups had in mind a particular set of texts as their sacred scriptures which provided the evidence they needed to define what they constructed as orthodoxy—proper belief. There is even enough evidence to suggest that “the proto-heretical, not the proto-orthodox, were in the majority at some points in the early Church” [John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1998): 40]. For instance, Arianism at one time was so popular that Jerome remarked that “the world groaned and was amazed that it had become Arian” [Quoted in Henderson, 43-44].
Throughout these events, support was provided by appeal to what was considered sacred scriptures. When Pope Leo I declared the Roman tradition as orthodoxy and focused church authority to the papal office, his support was based on the succession of popes that began with Jesus’ instruction to Peter in the gospels[Henderson, 44], not to the primacy of the Roman See, the influential location of the Roman church, some divine vision, or the popularity of its beliefs in the emerging Christianity.
In the various councils that fought against what became heresies—or more precisely, heterodoxies—creeds were formulated by appeals to scriptures. By the time of these councils, much of Christianity had come to a mostly agreed-upon set of scriptures; only a handful of books were disputed at the fringes [Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995): 206 and Appendix 1.D]. Given an early date of acceptance of the NT canon to be Athanasius’s Easter Letter of 367 and a late date to be the Council of Carthage in 397, much of what is now orthodox belief in Christianity was not finalized until this time or later [The doctrine of the trinity was not fully formed until the second Ecumenical Council (at Constantinople) in 381. Most other issues were not settled until at least the mid-fifth century].
The ability to define orthodoxy requires both an accepted set of scriptures and a motivation to do such. During much of Christianity’s first century, there was not a motivation for creating orthodoxy—something that is for longevity of the religion—because the primary focus was the imminent second coming of Christ. What good is it to discuss and flesh out a set of beliefs that will probably not come to fruition before the end of time. This is similar to the reasoning scholarship believes there were few books in the beginning of Christianity. As just mentioned above, the majority of sacred scriptures were agreed upon relatively early compared to the formation of orthodoxy. The greatest driving force behind the consolidation of belief into orthodoxy came almost exclusively from the proto-orthodox predecessors. In other words, the proponents of what would become orthodoxy wanted to promote their beliefs as orthodox and exclude other beliefs, even if those other beliefs were more common. As John Henderson mentions,
Despite the discovery of some Gnostic heresiology in the Nag Hammadi materials, there remains a “curious scarcity of anti-orthodox polemics in the heretical literature. Although it seems that second-century heretical authors were far more prolific than their orthodox counterparts, they appear uninterested in refuting the orthodox position.” [Henderson, 27]
This is a major factor to consider when analyzing the development of orthodoxy. Too often, it is believed that the battle for orthodoxy was a constant fight between both parties, but it seems that orthodoxy was brought by brute force rather than discussion [Henderson, 46].
The creation of orthodoxy depends upon the existence of an accepted set of sacred scriptures, a canon. It is important that the texts are treated as religiously authoritative and not just edifying. This distinction can be seen most clearly in the acceptance of Epistle of Barnabas. It was originally accepted as canonical by fathers such as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria, as well as being included in the earliest textual witnesses, including Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, later church fathers such as Athanasius and Rufinus removed it from their list of canonical books while still suggesting it as edifying for the church [McDonald, 271]. Through the use of scriptures, orthodoxy defines its core doctrines as well as those beliefs that are incompatible with them—heterodoxy.
Your article has challenged me to learn a little more about the formation of the bible. After reading your article, I realize that I should be more aware of not just the specific events in the 4th century, but also the kind of texts that were floating around in the time leading up to it.
I’m going to try to reserve opinion on this (I may not be successful) until I read more of the series, and have a chance to look at some books again. There are parts I readily agree with, and some things that strike me as wrong.
Colin, start by reading A High View Of Scripture? it’s an AMAZING book that everyone should read!
thanks Bryan!
cchrisr,
That was a very well-written and informative article. Excellent, actually. I can’t wait to read the rest of the series. The part that struck me as very important was…
“During much of Christianity’s first century, there was not a motivation for creating orthodoxy—something that is for longevity of the religion—because the primary focus was the imminent second coming of Christ.”
I think proper belief is important, but my opinion is that the church has largely digressed from the expectation of Christ’s return in favor of an emphasis on orthodoxy and tradition. I see this as a major obstacle to retaining an attitude of preparedness. Such overemphasis breeds diversion and imbalance.
“I think proper belief is important, but my opinion is that the church has largely digressed from the expectation of Christ’s return in favor of an emphasis on orthodoxy and tradition. I see this as a major obstacle to retaining an attitude of preparedness. Such overemphasis breeds diversion and imbalance.”
I don’t agree. I think there is a false dichotomy presented here that the Church can only wait expectantly for Christ’s return OR set up orthodoxy and tradition. Even more importantly, the NT doesn’t show this to be the case AT ALL. The apostles thought that Christ was coming back in their lifetime, yet they still preached strongly against false doctrine and setting up proper structure and hierarchy within the church body. Furthermore, they were coming out of the Jewish tradition, which CLEARLY promoted tradition and orthodoxy. There is no reason to believe that the apostles completely rejected that idea. I’m not sure if cchrisr is arguing for that, but it appears you are, Chris A.
I will tell you that the assertion that “The creation of orthodoxy depends upon the existence of an accepted set of sacred scriptures, a canon.” is in short incorrect. There is no canon of scripture, only a canon of truth. What is this canon of truth but the proclamation of the Apostles that Christ was crucified and raised again. According to the Nicaean creed these events happened “according to the scriptures”, but what were the scriptures? The “scriptures” are a technical term referring strictly to what we call the Old Testament. Remember that St. Paul had no New Testament from which to quote. St. Paul’s proclamation was the canon. For a more in depth study of this topic I would highly suggest John Behr “The Way to Nicaea”. For further analysis I would turn to John Stonestreet, a classmate and friend who did a video project where he interviewed both Ehrman and Behr. His email address is john@ocf.net If I can be of further assistance please feel free to email me at sirjsg@gmail.com
“I don’t agree. I think there is a false dichotomy presented here that the Church can only wait expectantly for Christ’s return OR set up orthodoxy and tradition. Even more importantly, the NT doesn’t show this to be the case AT ALL. The apostles thought that Christ was coming back in their lifetime, yet they still preached strongly against false doctrine and setting up proper structure and hierarchy within the church body. Furthermore, they were coming out of the Jewish tradition, which CLEARLY promoted tradition and orthodoxy. There is no reason to believe that the apostles completely rejected that idea. I’m not sure if cchrisr is arguing for that, but it appears you are, Chris A.”
I can see how you may have misunderstood my comments. I agree that correct doctrine is important, and I have not presented a false dichotomy. This is not an either/or scenario. It’s a matter of balance. Both sound doctrine and an earnest awaiting for the return of the King are important. What I think is that the overemphasis of either (in this case the former) creates an imbalance.
Imagine Jesus coming back and people being so caught up with theological correctness that they fail to observe the signs of his coming. Rather than fulfilling the Commission to make disciples of all nations, we decide that “our calling” is to be heresy hunters. It’s just a matter of priorities really. The reality is that people are dying and going to hell. Certainly we should make sure our theology is sound so that we produce legitimate disciples, and we should stamp out false teaching when it threatens our existence. But if we fail to make disciples in the first place, we will be left to compare ourselves amongst ourselves, which is unwise (2 Corinthians 10:12). Then we will be left to the same carnal arguments that the Corinthian church made: “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12).
Fr. James Guirguis hits on something that I wanted to look up at home. The apostles/ECFs had a “rule of faith” which defined orthodoxy. It may have been broader then we recognize orthodoxy as today, but it existed before the canon did, and is often appealed to in their letters (we see even St. Paul doing this in his letters).
Perhaps you should (maybe you are planning to) examine the why as well as the how of this issue. Almost all writing on this subject tends to gloss over (actually ignore would be more accurate) the brutal internicine political warfare of the many branches of the early church as the various factions battled, sometimes physically, for a limited amount of funds and followers.
By the time of Constantine this had became a constant source of problems within the empire to the point of being somewhat destabilizing. Constantine made what, at the time, seemed like a logical decision to recognize Christianity as an official religion. This was in the, as it turned out, very vain hope that as a state recognized religion Christianity would standardize the orthodoxy leading to a stabilization within the church. Despite what has been frequently written, Constantine never converted to Christianity. The decision was a purely political one. The practical result of this was to vastly increase the prize for being a winning orthodoxy. No surprise that this dramatically ratcheted up the competition.
One has to be aware that being a recognized church was very lucrative in a time when the empire was contracting and life was becoming much harder. Churches not only were exempt from taxes, but they received direct funding from the empire. Despite the very much sanitized depiction of the process as a series of scholarly discussions, establishing the orthodoxy was very frequently a bloody process sadly driven by self interest, power lust, and greed instead of true Christian values. Having a rival Christian sect’s orthodoxy declared heretical was a big score. You not only gained their funding, property, and followers, their leaders could end up executed as well.
My point on all this is that not all orthodoxy was derived from a polite debate by enlightened, benevolent church leaders living in ivory towers. Discussions of orthodoxy always seem to avoid why some issues became what could be charitably called convoluted. I would consider this at best intellectually dishonest, because it ignores the impact of the dark parts of the churches past. We should acknowledge all of the how and why of process that has led us to where we are today.
“Constantine made what, at the time, seemed like a logical decision to recognize Christianity as an official religion. This was in the, as it turned out, very vain hope that as a state recognized religion Christianity would standardize the orthodoxy leading to a stabilization within the church. Despite what has been frequently written, Constantine never converted to Christianity. The decision was a purely political one.”
I sort of always thought this might be the case, although I have never read or heard this anywhere else.
Of course, gnostic christianity is the true christianity.
Two millineum of mendacious apologetics hasn’t removed the neccessity to face reality.
The Demiurge that orthodoxers worship is not God. Never was, never will be.
Darius,
I think you are misreading my points slightly. It is not that the early church was completely against creating doctrine, but rather that their focus was on the imminent return of Christ. This made the notion of writing things down and formulating which texts were to be treated as “scriptures” and which weren’t irrelevant. Also, Jewish tradition at that time was still not completely developed (I think I touch on this in part 3 of this series); yes, they had closed the sets known as “Torah” and “Prophets,” but there is still some strong debate on the “Writings” until well into the third century. This is why some early Christians really endorsed what we know as the deuterocanonical books. Go ask any Roman Catholic priest what the Bible is and you’ll get an answer that differs from a Protestant minister, as well as an Ethiopic minister, a Greek Orthodox priest, etc. None of these groups completely agree on that definition and it is, in my opinion, because the canon was not settled as it texts were written but rather well afterwards when the Church was able to start focusing on that instead of the imminent return of Christ and the massive persecution they early church faced. While some people may object to this, I really don’t because it shouldn’t matter to one’s faith.
Fr. Guirguis,
Of course there’s a canon of scripture. (I’m assuming that you’re Roman Catholic here). You should know full well that there is a canon of scripture because our Bibles don’t match. Protestants have a handful of books less than that which was accepted at the Synod of Hippo, the Council of Carthage, the Council of Trent, etc. Try defending the concept of purgatory without using the deuterocanonical books or tradition (and yes, I know what 2 Vatican has said about the latter): you’ll fail because it’s not there. Sure, you can try to sound like early church fathers and their “rule of faith”, but you’ll be out of luck because even they looked at some texts as “religiously authoritative” (e.g., 1 Corinthians) and some as not (e.g. Apocalypse of Paul, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas). Furthermore, this list of acceptable books came in large part due to what was becoming orthodoxy (or, if you’d prefer 2 Vatican terminology, tradition). Look at the history of the Syriac church and you’ll see a very different canon that to this day does not recognize James or Revelation (among others) as canonical texts. This was largely due to their orthodoxy changing in the 4th century to reflect western orthodoxy, primarily due to the influence of Eusebius.
Cchrisr, I am very impressed by this article. There is nothing which I would feel the need to disagree with, though I suspect this will change in future articles in the series. Excellent piece of writing, which raises some questions I think it is useful for Christians to consider.
Ok, I think I see what you’re getting at, Cchrisr. I agree that the early church (especially the apostles) didn’t appear to show a huge interest in putting together doctrinal texts. Rather, the church passed around letters from the apostles to help edify and encourage the body.
Without a defined orthodoxy, it is nearly impossible to define a set of scriptures. Without a set of scriptures, there cannot be a strong definition of orthodoxy.
This I think is where I would start to disagree. I think that there was a defined orthodoxy before the creation of the bible, and that orthodoxy was the “Rule of Faith”. The best brief description of the change from the “Rule of Faith” to a closed textual canon I’ve seen is from “A High View of Scripture?” by Craig Allert:
Generally speaking, a canon is anything that functions as a standard or norm. Even though we have here predominantly been using the word with reference to a list of texts, its initial use had nothing to do with texts, and this was the case also in Christianity. On the four occasions when the apostle Paul uses the term “canon,” it is never to refer to a collection of writings but rather once to the standard of Christian behaviour [Gal 6:16], and three times in the same passage in connection with the sphere that God has given to Paul for his missionary work [Cor 10:13-16]/ In chapter 4 we will see that, in the latter half of the second century “canon” for Irenaeus meant the Rule of Faith, the content of essential Christian belief. This was also true of other church fathers. Even the infamous Porphyry, who wrote the scathing Against the Christians in about 270, is aware of a “canon of truth” handed down from Jesus and safegarded in the church.
Soon the word “canon” moved from this more fluid usage to refer to concrete things, such as conciliar decisions, monastic rules, clergy, and finally to a list, index, or table - something with which a person can orient oneself. We can thus se the natural growth of the category to include an official list of Christian scripture alongside the other ecclesiastical canons. As we have already learned, however, this growth was gradual and is not explicitly discernible until the mid-fourth century with Athanasius. In light of this it is interesting to see how Scripture function in this age of canonical lists, after the concept of canon came to include a lot of authoritative Christian writings.
I guess it really matters what you mean by “strong definition”. I would definitely argue that there was an orthodoxy before the creation of the lists of scripture were done and that that orthodoxy was one of the main forces in choosing which books were to be scripture. The creation of a closed canon allowed the orthodoxy to then be further defined (as did opponents to the Rule of Faith arising).
Two other quick things. First Ehrman is not without good critics (Wallace is no light weight here). And second a link to throw up just for informational sake; The Canon And Ancient versions is a good place to quickly seewhat books were included in who’s list.
I am not Roman Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox. On another note, Bryan has made a very good point…the canon has lost its original meaning. The meaning of canon is rule. The canon of truth is that which was preached and only later reiterated through a set of books. We must remember that the Christian faith is nothing other than that proclamation preached by the Apostles. Jesus himself left no writings. The Church fathers appealed to the NT because it was the solidification of that which was passed down through the Apostles. As far as the second coming is concerned, we have missed the point if we think that any of the Apostles was completely consumed with such thoughts. A thorough reading of the New Testament will tell us otherwise. Yes St. Paul may have seen the coming of Christ as imminent, but this in no way took away from the message of the identity of Christ. Orthodoxy preoccupies the thinking of the NT. Truth tends to be an all consuming aspect of Christianity from early times(see Heb 13:8 “Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever”). This is an admonition to hold fast to the teachings on the person of Jesus Christ. Certainly the Bible is the central guide for our faith, but we must always remember that the Apostles did not turn to the NT for guidance. St. Paul tells the people to adhere to “his Gospel”. This is a challenge to seriously take a look at our first principle. This principle is not and cannot be that the New Testament is the basis for our faith. Our faith is based on the proclamation traditioned by word and later in letters. What denotes one writing as authentic and another as heretical but the canon of truth. It is for that reason that even the gnostic remarks come off as generally very silly and uninformed. Truth has been handed down and is safeguarded in the Holy Episcopacy, the modern succession of the Apostles.
All of the above topics are rather well discussed in “The Way to Nicaea” in a much better fashion than I could ever hope to achieve.