The Heresy of Orthodoxy & The Gospel and the Greeks

Post Reply
User avatar
Sean
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:48 am
Location: Smithton, IL USA

The Heresy of Orthodoxy & The Gospel and the Greeks

Post by Sean » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:28 am

I recently read these two books and thought they were very good for those interested in the subject matter they cover.

The Gospel and the Greeks by Ronald H. Nash goes into the question: Did early Christianity borrow their beliefs and/or practices from pagan religions and practices of their time?
This book covers a lot of ground and gives plenty of insight into the constant and undying assertion from outside the church that Jesus was just another pagan myth, recently popularized by the Zeitgeist video on youtube.
Personally, I found the book boring because I'm not very interested in this issue but I still wanted to look into it because of all the misinformation in our world today.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas J. Kostenberger & Michael J. Kruger is a critique of the Walter Bauer (and now Bart Ehrman) Thesis that early forms of Christianity were very diverse. That there were many separate but acceptable forms of Christianity and that it was not until "Orthodoxy" came along much later in the fourth and fifth centuries whereby "Christianity" was nailed down and anything that didn't fit in this later "Orthodoxy" was considered "Heresy". The claim is that before later councils ruled, Christianity was so diverse as to not have any theological foundation going back to Jesus. This book does a great job exposing the weaknesses of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis.
Unlike the first book mentioned above, this book was very interesting to me. In part because of all the things Bart Ehrman has said negatively about the bible but also because I just find this and textual criticism interesting.
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Heresy of Orthodoxy & The Gospel and the Greeks

Post by darinhouston » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 pm

Sean wrote: The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas J. Kostenberger & Michael J. Kruger is a critique of the Walter Bauer (and now Bart Ehrman) Thesis that early forms of Christianity were very diverse. That there were many separate but acceptable forms of Christianity and that it was not until "Orthodoxy" came along much later in the fourth and fifth centuries whereby "Christianity" was nailed down and anything that didn't fit in this later "Orthodoxy" was considered "Heresy". The claim is that before later councils ruled, Christianity was so diverse as to not have any theological foundation going back to Jesus. This book does a great job exposing the weaknesses of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis.
Unlike the first book mentioned above, this book was very interesting to me. In part because of all the things Bart Ehrman has said negatively about the bible but also because I just find this and textual criticism interesting.

I don't find it troubling that there was great diversity of opinion on items that don't matter greatly (I would be very surprised if there wasn't). Where I think Ehrman goes too far (at least what I've heard him say) is suggesting there was great diversity on core issues. The question for me is the value of "Orthodoxizing" so many peripheral issues (and thus making THEM central tenets).

User avatar
Sean
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:48 am
Location: Smithton, IL USA

Re: The Heresy of Orthodoxy & The Gospel and the Greeks

Post by Sean » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:12 pm

darinhouston wrote: I don't find it troubling that there was great diversity of opinion on items that don't matter greatly (I would be very surprised if there wasn't). Where I think Ehrman goes too far (at least what I've heard him say) is suggesting there was great diversity on core issues. The question for me is the value of "Orthodoxizing" so many peripheral issues (and thus making THEM central tenets).
Agreed

It seems that the early church would cite from the gospels & epistles as if they were authoritative. Ehrman's contention is that this could not occur because at this early stage there was no NT canon or church councils that had ruled on a great number of issues and that there was so much diversity that no true version Christianity existed at all, it was simply made up later. Yet the early church fathers considered that at least the gospels & the Pauline epistles to be true, authoritative, historical accounts of Jesus, the apostles & His teachings early in the second century. While the books of the NT were not yet "officially" canonized, this does not mean most of them weren't accepted already. It didn't take the council of Carthage in 397 AD for the church to realize what (at least most of) the canon was and therefore determine what is and is not "Christianity". There were a few disputed books among the many universally accepted books. Ehrman wants to make it seem as if Christianity couldn't even be defined until a much later time. Yet Athanasius had no trouble defending the "trinity", using the same 27 books that were later canonized. How could this be done if no one was in agreement on what texts were authoritative?
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”