Ehrman, Chapter 1

What Ehrman writes is generally easy to understand, but sometimes what he says can leave the wrong impression, as when his intention is to cast some doubt on the traditional explanation of how the choice was made of those writings that came to be included in what we call the New Testament. Ehrman's operating assumption is that there were a great diversity of views on what constituted Christianity in the first two centuries after the death of Jesus. Which, in its own right is true. However, traditionally Christianity has held that there was a continuity of beliefs from Jesus to his disciples and then to those who wrote the books included in the New Testament. This handing on of the traditions about Jesus, the Apostles and the early church represents a process of development of a body of doctrine that Ehrman refers to as "proto-orthodox" (translated: emerging correct doctrine).

Certainly, there was no unanimity of beliefs in the early church. But I think Ehrman goes too far in the direction of offering the impression of a number of equally valid competing sets of beliefs among Christians of the first two centuries. I am of the opinion that the books included in the New Testament represent a consensus of beliefs among early Christians. Ehrman would counter by saying that the winners write the history. But when Ehrman presents Athanasius as "the powerful bishop of Alexandria, Egypt" who dictated what books would be in or out of the final canon (meaning "official list") as decided in 367 CE (see page 6), Ehrman overstates the case dramatically. I will explain why.

The earliest Christian writings still in existence are the letters of the Apostle Paul included in the New Testament (as you will soon discover, many modern scholars doubt that Paul actually wrote all 13 letters attributed to him). Certainly Paul was not the only Christian in 50-60CE who knew how to write. No doubt other Christians composed various writings for various purposes that did not survive.

Without taking recourse to divine providence as an explanation, the survival of Paul's letters and their overarching influence in the development of Christian doctrine is due to several factors. The first factor is that documents were not a vital part of early Christianity. Those few wealthy Christians who could afford scrolls or books of the Jewish scriptures would own them for the benefit of their local congregation. But early Christianity began as a religion of the spoken word. At the beginning of Christianity a writing about Jesus would carry no authority whatsoever, compared to someone who could come to a local gathering of Christians and say, I will tell you what I was taught by the Apostle Peter or John or some other individual who had had personal contact with Jesus during his earthly life. The direct personal link with someone who had been with Jesus was of great value in granting authority to what that person taught about Christian doctrine. The second source of authority is someone who offered to a gathered congregation some word of the Lord under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (or claimed to do so). Added to this mix is the general perception in the ancient world that the mark of the educated man is the one who spoke well (that is: was an impressive orator). This bias comes out clearly in 2 Corinthians 10:10, where Paul writes in his own defense: "For they say, 'His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech is contemptible.'" Whatever deficiencies Paul might have had as a public orator did hinder his work in Corinth as is evidenced by the statement: "Since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor. 13:3). But his letters were impressive in their persuasive power.

We find that in some respects Paul unintentionally made possible his place in the development of Christian doctrine by taking what was then a rather novel approach to addressing problems in the churches he founded by composing letters and sending them (via an associate) to the church (rather than Paul visiting the church or having the associate attempt to speak for Paul). The true novelty to Paul's letter writing is that he (Paul) believed when his letters were read in the presence of the gathered congregation, it serves as a valid substitute for his presence, which I take to be the point that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 5:3 where he calls the church to account for tolerating blatant immorality and states: "For though absent in body, I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing." Thus Paul clearly believed his letters were a substitute for his personal presence and most scholars seem to believe this is a novel concept with Paul. But where that premise was accepted by the recipients of Paul's letters, it gives those letters an added authority.

What then happens (apparently) is that Paul's letters are copied and circulated among the churches that Paul founded and then among others as well. In the writings known as the "Apostolic Fathers" is a letter by the bishop of Rome, Clement by name (90CE) to the church at Corinth, which has sought his advice on some problems they were having (apparently they were still having problems). What is most significant about this letter of Clement to the church in Corinth is that he quotes from Paul's letter to the church at Corinth (the irony of the bishop of Rome quoting the words of their founder to them, words they had first received 35 years previously). Clement's quotations from Paul's letters demonstrates that in less that 35 years, Paul's letters were not only copied and circulated among churches far from their original recipients, but that these letters have begun to take on an aura of authority. There is no reason to gather together Paul's letters, painstakingly copy these letters by hand and then circulate them among a wide range of churches unless Christians believed that these letters (which were originally written to address specific problems) possessed religious truths that were equally valid for all Christians.

Thus we have the beginning of the Christian "canon." By 180 CE the four Gospels that are now in the New Testament had widespread approval among Christians, as we know from the writing of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, France at that time, in his writings against the Gnostics. Irenaeus cites that these four gospels were widely accepted, and in addition to this we find that Irenaeus' theology is heavily indebted to theological concepts that originated with Paul, and Lyon (in what is now France) is a long way from Ephesus (in what is now eastern Turkey). So, by 180 CE Paul's letters and the four Gospels are widely accepted as having the status of inspired scripture equal to that of the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament). This is confirmed by a piece call the Muratorian Fragment (a portion of a Christian writing, circa 200 CE) which makes reference to the books accepted as having the status of scripture among the churches in Rome and its vicinity. Included are the four gospels, the 13 letters attributed to Paul, Acts of the Apostles, the letter of Jude, two letters of John and the apocalypse (Revelation). The rule that guided the composition of this list was whether or not a book was allowed to be read during worship. This writing (the Muratorian Fragment) makes that point clear in stating that a very popular book among the Christians in Rome, called the Shepherd of Hermas, did not make the list, even though it was copied into some collections of the New Testament.

The reason the Shepherd did not make the official list is, since it is prophecy it could not be included because the list of prophetic books is considered closed (which would include what we call the Old Testament prophets, plus Revelation), and it could not be considered apostolic (the main criteria for authenticity of those books admitted to the final form of the New Testament) because the apostolic age was considered having concluded before the Shepherd of Hermas was written. The Shepherd of Hermas is included in the list of the non-canonical early Christian writings labeled the Apostolic Fathers (the Apostolic Fathers represent early Christian books written after the time of the New Testament but whose religious views are compatible with the views found in the New Testament).

What we see from this is that by 200 CE the four gospels, Acts and the letters of Paul already have the status of sacred scripture and they form the core of what will become the New Testament. But there are numerous writing of early Christianity that do not make it into the New Testament. In my opinion, the composition of the majority of the writings of the New Testament predate any other Christian writing still in existence.

There is validity to Ehrman's view that there was a great diversity of opinion of what constituted Christianity in the early days. There is no doubt that there were competing views of what constituted Christianity right from the beginning. But I believe the difference is that the books in the New Testament can claim a direct link to the original disciples of Jesus and that there is continuity of the traditions. Whereas, with almost all of the other so-called gospels (with the possible exception of Thomas), they are dependent on the canonical gospels for any reliable information about Jesus, and much of what they do contain is either legend or flight of fancy. (You will find that Ehrman will say just that about some of the contents of the four canonical gospels).

There is no doubt about the existence of competing views of what Christianity ought to be. In Galatians, chapters 1 and 2, we find Paul recounting how hard it was for him to convince the apostles in Jerusalem that it was okay for pagans to convert to Christianity without adopting a Jewish lifestyle. It seems that Peter went along with this idea, but James the half-brother of Jesus was set against such a view and probably never changed his mind. I am sure James had the view that if my brother the Jewish Messiah lived like a Jew, then all those who wish to receive the salvation he offers must adopt a Jewish lifestyle. Paul saw Christianity as going beyond Jesus the savior of the people Israel, but Jesus the universal savior, which James (who became the defacto leader of the Jerusalem church) did not accept. James was not being closed minded, because he was eager to have the pagans convert IF they adopted a Jewish lifestyle.

Then we find Paul in Corinth dealing with competing views to his own, especially views that many scholars label proto-Gnostic (or an emerging Gnosticism), as evidenced by a Paul writing against a view point that embraces an emphasis on knowledge (gnosis in Greek)) and a denial of a future resurrection of all people at the end of time (see 1 Corinthians 15). Paul says that if you do not believe in the resurrection of all people you cannot believe in Jesus' resurrection either. In the letter to the Colossians we find a concern about a form of Christianity including worshiping angels and and an emphasis on visions (see Colossians 2:18; the question is: is this a competing form of Christianity or some other "mystery" type religion? Some scholars speculate the problem may have been a strange form of Judaized Christianity, since angels specifically belong to Judaism). Then in 2 Timothy 4:4 (a book many modern scholars believe was written long after the time of Paul) we find reference to "myths" which may be a reference to the type of divine myths the Gnostics came up with in the second century.

The writings found at Nag Hammadi clearly represent a Christian Gnosticism. But there is such great discontinuity of these writing from what is found in the new Testament and they were clearly written after most of the New Testament writings that in my opinion, they represent a reaction to the emerging orthodox Christianity, not a parallel alternative. The Gnostic writings have some material in common with the New Testament (especially in the Gospel of Thomas), but much that is not. The Nag Hammadi writings are indebted to views that derive from Neo-Platonism and some contain some really strange ideas that Jesus is purported to have secretly conveyed to his disciples (which explains why no one had ever heard of them before; they were secrets). But the way to salvation required knowing these secrets, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a good example of book in with some of the trappings of a gospel, but really is a vehicle for some esoteric teaching.

But Ehrman goes a bit far, I believe, when he says that the New testament emerged from conflicts among Christian groups and that the dominance of the position that won out is what led to the development of the Christian canon as we have it today. Now since Ehrman has no personal stake in Christianity it is easy for him to say that the gospels of Peter and Philip were summarily rejected because they expressed a different view of Christianity., But I think that if you read these Gospels, I think you would be inclined to agree with me that parts of them are down right flaky, and it is no wonder they were not included in the New Testament. If you want, I will provide you with examples.

In conclusion, Ehrman gives too much credit to Athanasius for establishing the final form of the New Testament canon. First, Athanasius was simply echoing what was the commonly accepted view by that time. By 367, all of the discussions and arguments about the canon were in the past and what happened in 367 was simply a council rubber stamping the status quo so there was no question in Christianity anywhere in the vast Roman empire about what Christian writings were Christian scripture. Secondly, Athanasius was not all that powerful. He spent much of his time as bishop of Alexandria in exile in the desert. First he was banished by the Roman emperor Constantine because theologians whom Athanasius claimed had heretical views persuaded the emperor to depose Athanasius (especially the Arians who believed that Jesus was the created son of the Father not the co-eternal son of the Father as Athanasius taught). After Constantine died, Athanasius appealed to the new emperor who gave him his job of bishop back to him. But still for four more times from 335 to 366 Athanasius was exiled by those who opposed him (usually for his beliefs). Athanasius was returned to his role as bishop of Alexandria securely in 366 until his death in 373. During these last years, Athanasius was indeed a powerful force in Christianity, and enjoyed the support of the Roman emperor. However, when Ehrman speaks of the impact of the decision of the council of 367 as an example of Athanasius' power, that's stretching it a bit. While in retrospect, the views of Athanasius became normative for Christianity (as encased in the Nicene Creed), during his lifetime, there was no guarantee that Athanasius' theological views would become those embraced as normative for Christianity, since the competing views of Arius (d. 336) enjoyed wide popularity throughout Christianity, not limited to certain locals, but widespread support among priests, theologians, and lay people. The matter was not finally settled until a council convened in 381 to address the matter. But by that time nobody was arguing about what books belonged in the New Testament. That question was settled long before the decision became official.